Gear Warning

"Derek Copeland" wrote in
message ...
Isn't the fact of the matter that retractable undercarriages
are a 'Murphy's Law' item that it is possible to get
wrong, whatever systems you put in place.

There are only two sorts of pilots - Those who have
already landed gear up, and those who will some day.


No offense, but that, of course, is hog-wash. There is a large third
category of pilots: "Those who use whatever tools are available to them to
fly safely and NOT land gear up during their entire flying career."

I intend to remain in this latter group.

all the best,

bumper
(2000+ hours in retractable since 1991 and no belly scratches yet. One gear
warning save during training.)

Dear 'bumper',

Good luck in remaining in the third category!

You have been saved from a wheel up landing on one
occasion by a gear up warning device. I was not so
lucky!

I believe that you said in a previous piece that it
was in a Mooney, i.e. is a powered aircraft. Power
flying tends to be a bit more structured than gliding
in terms of checklists etc, but then you have more
time to carry them out during the mini cross-countries
that power circuits seem to have become.

OK, I will concede that a few glider pilots go through
their careers without a wheel up landing, but they
are probably in the minority, or fly fixed gear types
anyway.

I have never understood the arguments against pre-landing
checks or undercarriage warning devices, which I will
list:

1) You might forget to do the check, or get it wrong!
2) You shouldn't rely on something that could go wrong
and fail to operate
3) An U/C warning device going off late on finals could
distract a pilot and cause him to have a serious accident,
rather than a minor scrape.

On the other hand:
1) In gliders, the U/C warning device is normally linked
to the airbrake lever. If you unlock the airbrakes
with the wheel up, the warning device should sound.
I normally unlock the airbrakes, but hold them shut,
on the base leg, so if the warning did go off, I would
have plenty of time to sort the problem out.

2) Undercarriages provide a degree of shock absorption
in the event of a heavy landing. A heavy wheel up landing
is much more likely to injure the pilot and seriously
damage the glider.

3) If I am warned at the last minute that I have left
the gear up, I don't necessarily have to try and lower
it. I can either head for a grass area, rather than
a tarmac runway, or aim to land as gently as possible.
I would rather know!

With pre-landing checks plus an U/C warning device,
at least two things have to go wrong before a gear
up landing can occur. Why not use the available techiques
and technology?

Derek Copeland



At 16:12 26 November 2005, Bumper wrote:

'Derek Copeland' wrote in
There are only two sorts of pilots - Those who have
already landed gear up, and those who will some day.

No offense, but that, of course, is hog-wash. There
is a large third
category of pilots: 'Those who use whatever tools are
available to them to
fly safely and NOT land gear up during their entire
flying career.'

I intend to remain in this latter group.

all the best,

bumper
(2000+ hours in retractable since 1991 and no belly
scratches yet. One gear
warning save during training.)

Graeme Cant wrote:


Before it made its recommendation, did the BGA try to find out how many
accidents were PREVENTED by the presence of a warning system? I know
many gear-up landings on grass are fairly innocuous but a number are
not. What is the balance between accidents prevented by gear warnings
versus accidents 'caused' (in BGA terms) by them?

For example, have pilots avoided injuries during off-airfield landings
because they put the wheel down when the warning went off? Landing on a
smooth grass runway is one thing; it can be much more hazardous in a
rocky pasture, one with irrigation feed pipes sticking up a few inches,
or sliding through a fence because your brake doesn't work when it's
inside the glider.

Of course, there might be off-airfield crashes that could have the gear
warning as a factor.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

"Derek Copeland" wrote in
message ...
Dear 'bumper',

Good luck in remaining in the third category!

You have been saved from a wheel up landing on one
occasion by a gear up warning device. I was not so
lucky!

I believe that you said in a previous piece that it
was in a Mooney, i.e. is a powered aircraft. Power
flying tends to be a bit more structured than gliding
in terms of checklists etc, but then you have more
time to carry them out during the mini cross-countries
that power circuits seem to have become.


True, however, power planes sometimes do lots of touch-and-goes, so there's
more opportunity for a gear-up. Perhaps this skews the odds back in the
other direction? One might argue that a Mooney is not the typical trainer,
so wouldn't be subject to this.

I got the Mooney when I was a 25 hour student pilot, so was doing lots of
circuits and bumps when I had my "almost" gear-up. Abeam the numbers, I
thought, "Better put the gear down", not thinking that's where it already
was because I'd failed to raise it on take-off. Flipped the gear switch,
didn't matter which direction - - I just needed to operate something - - and
listened to the somewhat familiar sound of the gear in transit. Hmm, why is
that warning sound disturbing me?? Had there been no gear warning system,
there's no question of what would have happened next.

all the best,

bumper

OK, I will concede that a few glider pilots go through
their careers without a wheel up landing, but they
are probably in the minority, or fly fixed gear types
anyway.

I have never understood the arguments against pre-landing
checks or undercarriage warning devices, which I will
list:

1) You might forget to do the check, or get it wrong!
2) You shouldn't rely on something that could go wrong
and fail to operate
3) An U/C warning device going off late on finals could
distract a pilot and cause him to have a serious accident,
rather than a minor scrape.

On the other hand:
1) In gliders, the U/C warning device is normally linked
to the airbrake lever. If you unlock the airbrakes
with the wheel up, the warning device should sound.
I normally unlock the airbrakes, but hold them shut,
on the base leg, so if the warning did go off, I would
have plenty of time to sort the problem out.

2) Undercarriages provide a degree of shock absorption
in the event of a heavy landing. A heavy wheel up landing
is much more likely to injure the pilot and seriously
damage the glider.

3) If I am warned at the last minute that I have left
the gear up, I don't necessarily have to try and lower
it. I can either head for a grass area, rather than
a tarmac runway, or aim to land as gently as possible.
I would rather know!

With pre-landing checks plus an U/C warning device,
at least two things have to go wrong before a gear
up landing can occur. Why not use the available techiques
and technology?

Derek Copeland



At 16:12 26 November 2005, Bumper wrote:

'Derek Copeland' wrote in
There are only two sorts of pilots - Those who have
already landed gear up, and those who will some day.

No offense, but that, of course, is hog-wash. There
is a large third
category of pilots: 'Those who use whatever tools are
available to them to
fly safely and NOT land gear up during their entire
flying career.'

I intend to remain in this latter group.

all the best,

bumper
(2000+ hours in retractable since 1991 and no belly
scratches yet. One gear
warning save during training.)

For club 2 seaters it should be easy to satisfy both those that desire
a gear warning and those that think gear warning is dangerous and wish
to rely on checklists. Just fit a gear warning off switch and perform
a simple short final check - airspeed good, gear warning OFF.

The ideal position for the switch would be on the airbrake handle of
course otherwise the gear warning would have to be turned off before
the airbrakes are opened.

In my single seaters I''ll stick with my short final check - airspeed
good, gear down.


Andy

At 16:12 27 November 2005, Andy wrote:
snip
In my single seaters I''ll stick with my short final
check - airspeed good, gear down.


Andy

Good idea; keep doing it!

But what is wrong with installing a gear warning system
and then pretending it is not there?

In article ,
Don Johnstone
wrote:

At 11:36 25 November 2005, Mark Newton wrote:
A wheels-up landing in an aircraft which doesn't have
an undercarriage alarm is a wholly predictable accident.
Why is there this attitude that says it's ok to see it coming,
yawn about it, and do basically *nothing* to prevent it?
I mean, you can stress checklists and piloting skill as much
as you want, but we've built up a track record which says
those things DON'T WORK to prevent these accidents, while building
up a simultaneous record which says undercarriage warnings
DO work. So why resist the fitment of undercarriage warnings?

So, your argument is that all pilots will land with
the wheel up if they do not have an alarm fitted?


Bangs head on table

Contratulations, Don, for winning the award for stupidest
comment yet posted in this thread. Which is some feat.

As you were typing it, you *knew* that my argument was nothing
of the sort, but you went ahead and typed it anyway. Well done,
mate, your determination and willingness to push-on regardless
of your own knowledge of the facts of the situation stands
proud as an example to us all.

- mark

Not stupid at all Mark, if you read your post that
is exactly what you have said. I accept that it might
not be what you meant.

Not all pilots who have a retractable undercarriage
and no alarm will land wheels up, in fact I would say
that, despite anecdotal 'evidence' to the contrary,
the majority will not.
I don't think I have ever said do not ever fit an alarm,
just be aware it is a double edged sword.

At 00:18 30 November 2005, Mark Newton wrote:
In article ,
Don Johnstone
wrote:

At 11:36 25 November 2005, Mark Newton wrote:
A wheels-up landing in an aircraft which doesn't have
an undercarriage alarm is a wholly predictable accident.
Why is there this attitude that says it's ok to see
it coming,
yawn about it, and do basically *nothing* to prevent
it?
I mean, you can stress checklists and piloting skill
as much
as you want, but we've built up a track record which
says
those things DON'T WORK to prevent these accidents,
while building
up a simultaneous record which says undercarriage
warnings
DO work. So why resist the fitment of undercarriage
warnings?

So, your argument is that all pilots will land with
the wheel up if they do not have an alarm fitted?




Contratulations, Don, for winning the award for stupidest
comment yet posted in this thread. Which is some feat.

As you were typing it, you *knew* that my argument
was nothing
of the sort, but you went ahead and typed it anyway.
Well done,
mate, your determination and willingness to push-on
regardless
of your own knowledge of the facts of the situation
stands
proud as an example to us all.

- mark

In article ,
Don Johnstone
wrote:

Not stupid at all Mark, if you read your post that
is exactly what you have said.

No, exactly what I said is quoted below. It bears very little
resemblence to the words you have attempted to put into my
mouth.

I'm pretty confident that other readers, having looked at the
words I used and the meaning you have attributed to them, will
conclude that you're way off. So if you want to continue on
this basis feel free, just understand that it's your reputation,
not mine, that you're impugning.

I accept that it might not be what you meant.

Thanks heaps for cheapening the discussion, Don. Excellent
work, you have lots to be proud of!

- mark



Not all pilots who have a retractable undercarriage
and no alarm will land wheels up, in fact I would say
that, despite anecdotal 'evidence' to the contrary,
the majority will not.
I don't think I have ever said do not ever fit an alarm,
just be aware it is a double edged sword.

At 00:18 30 November 2005, Mark Newton wrote:
In article ,
Don Johnstone
wrote:

At 11:36 25 November 2005, Mark Newton wrote:
A wheels-up landing in an aircraft which doesn't have
an undercarriage alarm is a wholly predictable accident.
Why is there this attitude that says it's ok to see
it coming,
yawn about it, and do basically *nothing* to prevent
it?
I mean, you can stress checklists and piloting skill
as much
as you want, but we've built up a track record which
says
those things DON'T WORK to prevent these accidents,
while building
up a simultaneous record which says undercarriage
warnings
DO work. So why resist the fitment of undercarriage
warnings?

So, your argument is that all pilots will land with
the wheel up if they do not have an alarm fitted?




Contratulations, Don, for winning the award for stupidest
comment yet posted in this thread. Which is some feat.

As you were typing it, you *knew* that my argument
was nothing
of the sort, but you went ahead and typed it anyway.
Well done,
mate, your determination and willingness to push-on
regardless
of your own knowledge of the facts of the situation
stands
proud as an example to us all.

- mark