Gear up landing, when does the FAA get involved?

O

Oopsie

Guest
A local gentleman had a gear up landing today. The local police came out for a report, FAA was notified and they wanted photos of the airplane inside and out before moving it, and that it is not to be touched until an inspector can come out to the hangar and see it.

Question is, does the FAA typically get involved in something like this?
 
A local gentleman had a gear up landing today. The local police came out for a report, FAA was notified and they wanted photos of the airplane inside and out before moving it, and that it is not to be touched until an inspector can come out to the hangar and see it.

Question is, does the FAA typically get involved in something like this?
Yes. Been there, done that twice. Be honest, 'fess up if you messed up. If it was a gear issue like both of ours were, and your paperwork is in order, it's a non-event except for repairs.
If something in the gear broke, your fellow aviators want to know if there's a weak point in the system. If it's a pilot error deal, owning it is better than blame shifting.
 
Yes. Been there, done that twice. Be honest, 'fess up if you messed up. If it was a gear issue and your paperwork is in order, it's a non-event except for repairs.
Who called the FAA? I didn’t think this was something they get involved with.
 
Who called the FAA? I didn’t think this was something they get involved with.
Doesn't matter. Once the FAA's been called, dodging makes you look bad.

If it's a towered airport, the tower probably has a SOP to call. If it's state or local police, they don't know the rules on what constitutes and accident vs an incident and they usually just call because they don't know any better and they didn't do anything "wrong" so it's not going to help to antagonize the LEOs.

After the fact, you can go to the local police department and work to make sure they are educated on what has to be reported vs what doesn't, but don't expect them to change policy.
 
Simply landing gear up does not need to be reported unless there has been substantial damage;

Substantial damage means damage or failure which adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and which would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component. Engine failure or damage limited to an engine if only one engine fails or is damaged, bent fairings or cowling, dented skin, small punctured holes in the skin or fabric, ground damage to rotor or propeller blades, and damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips are not considered “substantial damage” for the purpose of this part.”
 
Our situation where the gear wasn't locked was just over a month ago - the FAA came and looked, and it's being classified as an incident and we're hopefully flying her again on Monday.


Yes, technically most gear-ups aren't mandatory reporting events, but if the authorities are alerted, the FAA has the authority to come look.
 
Please elaborate.

A local gentleman had a gear up landing today. The local police came out for a report, FAA was notified and they wanted photos of the airplane inside and out before moving it, and that it is not to be touched until an inspector can come out to the hangar and see it.

Question is, does the FAA typically get involved in something like this?
Why in the world would the police be involved in a gear up? Some stole the landing gear? Or maybe the landing gear switch?
 
Why in the world would the police be involved in a gear up? Some stole the landing gear? Or maybe the landing gear switch?
Someone says a plane crashed, the police roll up, their "protocol" says to call the FAA. Been there done that, got detained in a field for something like 3 hours after an oil line failure a few years back. Doesn't matter that the plane wasn't damaged in the landing.

The issue is general ignorance in the LEO community, but in fairness, it isn't their area of specialization.
 
Our situation where the gear wasn't locked was just over a month ago - the FAA came and looked, and it's being classified as an incident and we're hopefully flying her again on Monday.


Yes, technically most gear-ups aren't mandatory reporting events, but if the authorities are alerted, the FAA has the authority to come look.
So, are you the one taking pictures or the other guy? :)
 
We had a Piper gear up at my field a few years ago. I was out there with the straps, and the tractor and had it off the runway in less than 40 min. As far as I know no one was called. There were no injuries, and the prop strike was obvious. I hoisted the plane to a hangar, we put about six car tires under the fuselage, and set it down. It was repaired and flew out a few months later.

If we had taken longer to move the plane, I would report a field closed NOTAM, but everything worked out easy and quick, so I didn't even bother.
 
Question is, does the FAA typically get involved in something like this?
If someone calls them. The typical gear up landing is not a reportable event from an NTSB standpoint, but someone often calls in the FAA or NTSB. Obvious is when an airport or runway needs to be NOTAM’d closed while the airplane is removed, but I’ve even seen ramp retractions/collapses called in.

Investigation is often limited to discussions with the pilot and perhaps a 709 ride, but something may happen to warrant attention to the airplane. For example, if the pilot insists they did put the gear down - “it just collapsed” - the airframe is going to be checked to see why (or if) it did.
 
Last edited:
Question is, does the FAA typically get involved in something like this?
Yes. While the NTSB handles all aircraft incidents and accidents, the local FSDO usually will get a call first.

Who called the FAA?
Could be anyone: airport personnel, law enforcement, concerned public, etc.

Why in the world would the police be involved in a gear up?
Some states have laws to also investigate any aircraft incidents, etc. However, any 911 call will get them there as well and they tend to be the first on the scene.
 
There have been more than a few airplanes that were quickly rolled into the hangar after an accident and the door shut before anybody saw or reported it.
 
In mine, tower informed the usual suspects. I imagine they called LEO, FAA and NTSB because I gave a report to all three. Mine was considered an accident because the NTSB determined substantial damage because of the monocoque fuse.

IMG_8376.jpeg
 
Someone says a plane crashed, the police roll up, their "protocol" says to call the FAA. Been there done that, got detained in a field for something like 3 hours after an oil line failure a few years back. Doesn't matter that the plane wasn't damaged in the landing.

The issue is general ignorance in the LEO community, but in fairness, it isn't their area of specialization.
Maybe it’s a conspiracy!
 
Because someone called 911.??
Funny, I get the impression from the question that our guest thinks there is some vast conspiracy at work, when all it is in terms of the FAA, local LEO, ambulances, fire trucks, the newspapers and TV stations, etc etc, is that someone called.
 
A local gentleman had a gear up landing today. The local police came out for a report, FAA was notified and they wanted photos of the airplane inside and out before moving it, and that it is not to be touched until an inspector can come out to the hangar and see it.

Question is, does the FAA typically get involved in something like this?
Police don't usually get involved. FAA will if someone reports it
 
A couple of years ago I'm at Oshkosh and my cell rings. It's CLT Approach and they want to know the status of my airport (the airport manager number routes to my cell). I tell him I have no idea. He says an airplane (gives me the N number) has geared up there. I type the N number into the Bellringer terminal (where we look you up in vintage if to verify you are old enough). Sure enough, it's one of my neighbors. Tell him I'll get back to him.

Now, I'm thinking. Who can I call? I'm here, Bob's here, Pablo's here, ET's here, Ross is here. yada yada. Finally, get someone who is at home. Yep. They've go the thing back on the gear and pushed it over to one of the ramps. I let CLT know we're open (not that they route a lot of approaches in there).

Next call is from the FSDO from some guy I don't know (I actually have a good relationship with a lot of those guys, to the point of having their cell numbers "in case I need them."). He wants to know what's going on. I told him that there were no injuries and only minor damage (nice thing about gearing up an MU-2 is the engines don't get anywhere near the ground. Just lost some antennas). Tell him they've move the plane off the runway. He goes apoplectic that we moved the airplane. I remind him that I'm standing in the middle of the field at Oshkosh and it's not under my control and give him the number of the guy who is left home.

I text him real quick and let him know that the 704 number that's about to call him is the FAA and he can answer or not at his desire.

In the end, nothing came out of it.

I believe that a gear up landing is pretty much an automatic 709 ride. But those I know who have been through it find it a non-event.

I was just real lucky when I had my engine failure flying young eagles, that some ultralighter had killed himself at about the same time a few counties over. The FAA was happy that nobody here was injured and spent their time dealing with the other one.
 
Our situation where the gear wasn't locked was just over a month ago - the FAA came and looked, and it's being classified as an incident and we're hopefully flying her again on Monday.


Yes, technically most gear-ups aren't mandatory reporting events, but if the authorities are alerted, the FAA has the authority to come look.
Really hard to find ANY fault here when there is extremely clear video evidence that the gear WAS extended, we got to see the gear collapse, the landing was made probably close to the stall horn (or maybe with the horn blaring), kept it straight until the very end, and the mixture was pulled pretty much as soon as the mains hit. I see no 709 in your future with all of that going for you!
 
Really hard to find ANY fault here when there is extremely clear video evidence that the gear WAS extended, we got to see the gear collapse, the landing was made probably close to the stall horn (or maybe with the horn blaring), kept it straight until the very end, and the mixture was pulled pretty much as soon as the mains hit. I see no 709 in your future with all of that going for you!
Still, even though we could pretty much prove irrefutably that it wasn't a pilot error issue, the FAA did talk to us and wanted to know what caused the incident, and to be honest, I wasn't bothered in the least that they did. If I owned a Cardinal, (and we have three in the company) I'd want to know if there is a recurring mechanical issue that would affect the broader fleet.
 
Still, even though we could pretty much prove irrefutably that it wasn't a pilot error issue, the FAA did talk to us and wanted to know what caused the incident, and to be honest, I wasn't bothered in the least that they did. If I owned a Cardinal, (and we have three in the company) I'd want to know if there is a recurring mechanical issue that would affect the broader fleet.
Agreed. The guy who sold me my share of our plane sold out because he bought a 177RG, so for his sake, I’d want to know about any recurring issues too. I’m glad you talked to the FAA to help your fellow owners/pilots.
 
Still, even though we could pretty much prove irrefutably that it wasn't a pilot error issue, the FAA did talk to us and wanted to know what caused the incident, and to be honest, I wasn't bothered in the least that they did. If I owned a Cardinal, (and we have three in the company) I'd want to know if there is a recurring mechanical issue that would affect the broader fleet.
Of course they wanted to know how it happened. Especially if it wasn’t pilot error. Exactly for the reason you say.
 
At an airport I worked at years ago, we had a pair of Bonanzas gear up within a month of each other. FAA was called both times. First pilot admitted he messed up, got distracted, forgot the gear. The interaction with the FAA ended with that one phone call.

The 2nd pilot got out, denied he messed up, swears the gear must have collapsed because he would never mess up. FAA came to the airport and spent several days inspecting the aircraft for malfunctions and interrogating the pilot.

Moral of the story, in a situation like this with no casualties and just some bent metal, just tell the truth. It will save you a lot of time and headaches.
 
At an airport I worked at years ago, we had a pair of Bonanzas gear up within a month of each other. FAA was called both times. First pilot admitted he messed up, got distracted, forgot the gear. The interaction with the FAA ended with that one phone call.

The 2nd pilot got out, denied he messed up, swears the gear must have collapsed because he would never mess up. FAA came to the airport and spent several days inspecting the aircraft for malfunctions and interrogating the pilot.

Moral of the story, in a situation like this with no casualties and just some bent metal, just tell the truth. It will save you a lot of time and headaches.
Your two stories are not at all unusual. And with a little thought, they both make sense.
 
Police don't usually get involved. FAA will if someone reports it
In some states, the state troopers are tasked with investigating aviation accidents. Twice in Virginia I've had to sit in a state police car and help an officer who had no idea about aviation fill out his accident report form. The funny one was when one went to the FBO and asked if there was any witnesses and my 8 year old passenger starts pulling on his pant leg and saying he saw it. The cop got down on one knee and took the kid's statement, it was hilarious.
 
Why in the world would the police be involved in a gear up? Some stole the landing gear? Or maybe the landing gear switch?
To document the scene as they found it.

If it is a public airport, to photograph the scene as evidence in event of personal injury civil claim for an airport defect.
To document damage to the airport caused by the incident.
To comply with state law.
 
To document the scene as they found it.

If it is a public airport, to photograph the scene as evidence in event of personal injury civil claim for an airport defect.
To document damage to the airport caused by the incident.
To comply with state law.
Absolutely. Especially from an Airport’s standpoint, I’d want all of the evidence I can get in the event the pilot elects to sue the municipality by claiming the airfield wasn’t safe or somehow contributed to the incident. Not always possible, but it’s good to have as much evidence as possible in a situation like that.
 
Absolutely. Especially from an Airport’s standpoint, I’d want all of the evidence I can get in the event the pilot elects to sue the municipality by claiming the airfield wasn’t safe or somehow contributed to the incident. Not always possible, but it’s good to have as much evidence as possible in a situation like that.

And I will add one more, to document persons on board, injured bystanders and witnesses.
 
Who called the FAA? I didn’t think this was something they get involved with.
Someone called the FAA when I pranged their runway with my propeller and wingtip in weather too windy to fly. Someone actually inspected the runway for damage! (And said it was fine, thus they wouldn't charge me.)
 
Pretty sure neither would be local jurisdiction.
Depends. A number of states and municipalities have local laws permitting aircraft accident investigations and the federal rules note this. For example, Ohio has such laws. However, no other agency other than the NTSB are permitted to participate in any probable cause determinations.
 
Back
Top