A Good Save
- Thread starter Tim
- Start date
silver-eagle
En-Route
And more to it: http://www.mccookgazette.com/story/1109870.html
Wow. That's dedication. Here's to the crew on the ground who worked so hard to save it and to the pilot for formation flying with a truck!
A great save!
Wow. That's dedication. Here's to the crew on the ground who worked so hard to save it and to the pilot for formation flying with a truck!
A great save!
Ken Ibold
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2005
- Messages
- 5,889
- Location
- Jacksonville, Florida
- Display Name
Display name:
Ken Ibold
Sorry, I don't see this as a good save. Why put three additional people in peril close to a spinning prop when simply landing the thing gear up would have been a safe, albeit expensive, alternative
Iceman
Pre-takeoff checklist
Ken Ibold said:
I agree 100%...not worth the risk.
Nav8tor
Line Up and Wait
Ken Ibold said:
I agree. Seems pretty reckless to me, although I have to admit I'm impressed with the skill of the pilot.
SkyHog
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2005
- Messages
- 18,433
- Location
- Castle Rock, CO
- Display Name
Display name:
Everything Offends Me
I don't get it - what was the idea? Have the dude on the ground with the stick pull the gear out and hope it locked? Would someone pulling from the ground effect the way the airplane flies? I'd hate to see everyone die because that dude with the stick fell out of the truck, and the extra weight brought the plane down into the pickup truck.
Or even a small bit of turbulence drops that wing onto the truck. Or the truck hits a bump and veers into the prop of the plane. That prop is awfully close to the truck afterall.
Or even a small bit of turbulence drops that wing onto the truck. Or the truck hits a bump and veers into the prop of the plane. That prop is awfully close to the truck afterall.
Tim
Line Up and Wait
Ken Ibold said:
Could be.... but the out come was 100% ok! When its your turn it will be your choice and I won't tell you, you did the wrong thing! You will do what was right for you and the people concerned.
You will also be responsible for the outcome as where they.
Iceman
Pre-takeoff checklist
I agree Tim...but in the end it is all about risk management.
By the way what FBO do you work at in Fairbanks? We were passing through 2 weeks ago and had a Tim fill the O2 tank on our mooney? Was that you?
By the way what FBO do you work at in Fairbanks? We were passing through 2 weeks ago and had a Tim fill the O2 tank on our mooney? Was that you?
Tim
Line Up and Wait
Iceman said:
Wasn't me, I work for you. I know most of the folks around the aerodrome been here for 27 years... You stayed in the air park?
Iceman
Pre-takeoff checklist
Tim said:
Nope...stayed at the best western (tried to split the tent/motel time 50/50 ended up being 30/70
) By the way everyone around the Fairbanks airport (fbo's, FSS, etc) were very nice selling supplies to us really cheap and pointing us in the right direction.
FYI - I was planning on calling you so we could meet up but the trip came and went waayy to fast. I really liked the city but I'm not sure about the -60 in the winter.
Tim
Line Up and Wait
Iceman said:Nope...stayed at the best western (tried to split the tent/motel time 50/50 ended up being 30/70
By the way everyone around the Fairbanks airport (fbo's, FSS, etc) were very nice selling supplies to us really cheap and pointing us in the right direction.
FYI - I was planning on calling you so we could meet up but the trip came and went waayy to fast. I really liked the city but I'm not sure about the -60 in the winter.
I thought I saw a mooney parked in the Airpark. I drive by there all the time on the way to the float pond. You should have called me. Were you here when the wind kicked up?
sere
Pre-takeoff checklist
Ken Ibold said:
I concur with you. Being brave and saving the aircraft some damage and being reckless is two different things. All this rick to save the insurance company some money is just not worth it.
...
Newbie question:
How dangerous is it to land a small, modern, passenger aircraft with gear up? The impression I get from reading some of these responses is that it would have been relatively safe, though highly damaging, to land the aircraft on its belly.
Newbie question:
How dangerous is it to land a small, modern, passenger aircraft with gear up? The impression I get from reading some of these responses is that it would have been relatively safe, though highly damaging, to land the aircraft on its belly.
ErikU
Pre-takeoff checklist
Re: ...
You are right. As cool a story as it may be, it wasn't a wise plan at all.
All they were doing is saving the plane from some (probably minor) damage of a gear up landing. The people would have been fine. They could have easily lost it all in that stunt.
It also sucks as bad PR for GA. Generating another on of those "look how dangerous small planes are" type of reactions. Judging from that story, the pilot and passenger would have died if not for the amazing rescue. Totally untrue. Actually makes me kind of mad now that I think about it.
You are right. As cool a story as it may be, it wasn't a wise plan at all.
All they were doing is saving the plane from some (probably minor) damage of a gear up landing. The people would have been fine. They could have easily lost it all in that stunt.
It also sucks as bad PR for GA. Generating another on of those "look how dangerous small planes are" type of reactions. Judging from that story, the pilot and passenger would have died if not for the amazing rescue. Totally untrue. Actually makes me kind of mad now that I think about it.
Straxus said:
Re: ...
It is relatively safe in that there are rarely serious injuries to people, and it does little damage to the plane. If the prop strikes the ground, the prop will have to be replaced, and the engine will have to be torn down and that is $. Beyond that, it is usually just some sheet metal work.
Some pilots try to stop the engine with the prop horizontal to avoid this, including "bumping" the prop to the horizontal with the starter motor. That just turns a gear up into a gear up, engine out too landing and unless you are a test pilot, it is probably a bad idea. At that point the plane belongs to the insurance company so let them pay for the engine teardown!
Landing with one of the mains cocked at a strange angle could indeed increase the danger of landing in that configuration - and it could increase it significantly. Note that the plane in the picture has the gear partially down and on that model, the gear may not be pointing straight down the runway. I'd rather land with the gear fully up in that plane.
Ken, any statistics on Cessnas with gear askew?
Maybe that is what motivated the heroics in the pickup truck.
-Skip
Straxus said:
It is relatively safe in that there are rarely serious injuries to people, and it does little damage to the plane. If the prop strikes the ground, the prop will have to be replaced, and the engine will have to be torn down and that is $. Beyond that, it is usually just some sheet metal work.
Some pilots try to stop the engine with the prop horizontal to avoid this, including "bumping" the prop to the horizontal with the starter motor. That just turns a gear up into a gear up, engine out too landing and unless you are a test pilot, it is probably a bad idea. At that point the plane belongs to the insurance company so let them pay for the engine teardown!
Landing with one of the mains cocked at a strange angle could indeed increase the danger of landing in that configuration - and it could increase it significantly. Note that the plane in the picture has the gear partially down and on that model, the gear may not be pointing straight down the runway. I'd rather land with the gear fully up in that plane.
Ken, any statistics on Cessnas with gear askew?
Maybe that is what motivated the heroics in the pickup truck.
-Skip
Last edited:
Ken Ibold
Final Approach
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2005
- Messages
- 5,889
- Location
- Jacksonville, Florida
- Display Name
Display name:
Ken Ibold
Re: ...
To generate some would be possible, but misleading, since gear up accidents generally don't cause damage sufficient to generate an NTSB report. The FAA prelims generally do include gear ups, but the FAA does not archive them online, which makes searching for data a time-consuming affair involving multiple letters to DC.Skip Miller said:
fgcason
En-Route
Two words:
Belly slide.
A whole bunch more words:
A belly slide in a 210 on pavement is very survivable.
I will do absolutely everything possible by the book then no holds barred adlib as much as I can to get that wheel down and locked before the fuel or daylight runs out. But the pickup truck routine? I'm going to run that puppy near out of fuel doing whatever possible, then suck whatever gear will come back up, go around, pull the mixture on final and set is down on the pavement as gently as possible and fly it until it comes to a complete stop then walk away and let the insurance foot the bill. NO WAY am I going to have on my concience possibly splitting someone's head open with my prop or killing everyone for an inconvience item. If you insist on bringing your pickup truck out with Kamikaze Joe driving and Bubba the ramp rat in the back, I will go crash at another airport thankyouverymuch.
My two marbles worth...
Belly slide.
A whole bunch more words:
A belly slide in a 210 on pavement is very survivable.
I will do absolutely everything possible by the book then no holds barred adlib as much as I can to get that wheel down and locked before the fuel or daylight runs out. But the pickup truck routine? I'm going to run that puppy near out of fuel doing whatever possible, then suck whatever gear will come back up, go around, pull the mixture on final and set is down on the pavement as gently as possible and fly it until it comes to a complete stop then walk away and let the insurance foot the bill. NO WAY am I going to have on my concience possibly splitting someone's head open with my prop or killing everyone for an inconvience item. If you insist on bringing your pickup truck out with Kamikaze Joe driving and Bubba the ramp rat in the back, I will go crash at another airport thankyouverymuch.
My two marbles worth...
it looks in the picture like the flaps are retracted. Is it possible that they have similar hydraulics as the gear? I thought Cessna flaps were electromechinical.
Why wouldn't you throw in 25 degrees of flaps to get the speed down and an attitude holding the prop higher?
Why wouldn't you throw in 25 degrees of flaps to get the speed down and an attitude holding the prop higher?
mikea said:
I don't know why the pilot did it, but a possible reason would be to create the highest possible deck angle, keeping the prop away from bubba in the truck... Dropping the flaps would decrease the deck angle at stall speed as configured (I think).
-Skip
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
Re: ...
Ken,
Isn't the FAA NASDAC system an archive of that info?
https://www.nasdac.faa.gov/portal/page?_pageid=33,33269&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
Ken Ibold said:
Ken,
Isn't the FAA NASDAC system an archive of that info?
https://www.nasdac.faa.gov/portal/page?_pageid=33,33269&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL
Dave Krall CFII
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2005
- Messages
- 5,022
- Location
- Seattle WA
- Display Name
Display name:
Dave Krall CFII SEL SES, Cmcl HELI
The danger of a cartwheeling effect is higher since, they stated one main gear was locked. That's a lot more potentially dangerous to occupants than a belly slide with both main gear up.But either way, it's the participants choice to attempt whatever they may wish to try, whether the reason is to save injuries or save a buck. Lastly, it's not even that difficult of a maneuver for a pilot who can perform the basic private pilot training maneuver of tracking the aircraft full length down the centerline at MCA.
grattonja
Line Up and Wait
Dave Krall CFII said:
And yet... There's no way I would have been Bubba on the truck with the hook, not standing relative to a spinning prop at 90 MPH where he is. NO WAY. I will hand prop a Champ, but I like my life just a bit too much to do what that guy is doing, where he is doing it. One gust of cross-wind into the picture, and truck and plane could go darn near anywhere.
Jim G
Dave Krall CFII
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2005
- Messages
- 5,022
- Location
- Seattle WA
- Display Name
Display name:
Dave Krall CFII SEL SES, Cmcl HELI
grattonja said:
In further defence of the skilled participants of the above pictured P210 "main gear snag-pick up truck & hook-save maneuver", it should be noted that the guys in the truck were not only safely prevented from falling out by being securely duct taped to the truck bed but, the hook master himself also had nothing less than a protective and nearly indestructable sheild of actual multilayered duct tape on the leading side of his head (both out of view from the camera) ... so no problem, leave 'em all alone.
* see today's separate thread on duct tape properties, advatages and philosophy
rpadula
En-Route
Sure, and any PPSEL with good crosswind landing technique should also be able to land on the locked down side and keep it there until sufficiently slow.Dave Krall CFII said:
IMO, I'd consider that less risky than chasing a pickup down the runway a dozen times. Sorry, but this gets the exalted Fark tag (see attached)...
-Rich
Dave Krall CFII
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2005
- Messages
- 5,022
- Location
- Seattle WA
- Display Name
Display name:
Dave Krall CFII SEL SES, Cmcl HELI
rpadula said:
The problems not addressed in your "solution" are that after the touchdown on the one locked main turns into a tilted spin on the surface with the high probability of a ruptered fuel tank and pursuant fire in the shock absorbing impacted wing.
Also, FYI; the Centurion was not chasing the pickup down the RWY but, merely holding vector while the race car driver in the truck made position adjustments by varying the truck's speed and lateral distance to the realtively steady track of the aircraft.
MSmith
Line Up and Wait
The article stated that they'd had work done on the gear and flaps hydraulics. Maybe that's why no flaps?
rpadula
En-Route
Dave,Dave Krall CFII said:
I'll defer to your experience as instructor, but I'm not sure I follow your explaination above. Do we not normally touch down on one locked main during crosswind landings? They all don't result in fuel spills and fires (at least not any of mine yet, knock on wood).
It looks like the left main locked down first. Are you saying that if the pilots landed on the left main, as the plane slowed, the right wingtip would eventually impact the ground and rupture the tank?
OK, I admit, a little too much license on my part. Still, I don't like the risk of trying that multiple times.
-Rich
If I read it right both main gear were unlocked until the second pass. After the first success they did increase the danger.
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
MSmith said:
I'm pretty sure that the flaps are purely electric.
Dave Krall CFII
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2005
- Messages
- 5,022
- Location
- Seattle WA
- Display Name
Display name:
Dave Krall CFII SEL SES, Cmcl HELI
rpadula said:
Yes, the probability of the right wing tank rupture/fire/etc goes up quite a bit, when the opposite main is the only main gear locked -totally different than the routine X Wind landing with two intact mains.
There is the highly significant "practice makes perfect factor" in the multiple-attempts facet, of this scenario. Contrary to increasing the risk, it actually lowers the risk, as the first passes were at a greater lateral/vertical distance between the two moving machines and as everyone gained more experience, the distance was incrementally decreased, in safe amounts, to achieve the desired result.
Last edited:
rpadula
En-Route
Aye, that's true. Taking a look at that picture again, I see my idea of landing "crosswind-style" on the locked-down left main might not have worked because the lagging right side looks so much lower than the left.ejensen said:
I do have a buddy who had a 210 and the gear did not lock down. He said he didn't even really notice until it slowed down and started wobbling a little and finally ended up over in the grass next to the runway. But it was all so slow, the only wing damage was on wingtip. No fuel tank rupture.
And, yes Lance, his flaps were electric.
-Rich
Dave Krall CFII
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2005
- Messages
- 5,022
- Location
- Seattle WA
- Display Name
Display name:
Dave Krall CFII SEL SES, Cmcl HELI
Steve said:
Whoa, whoa, whoa here !!
Let's not forget that this is a Centurion we're talking about here... it is a fine, FINE aircraft that isn't even being produced anymore and while perhaps not worth the lives of five people it most probably is worth the risk of at least three pilot's lives lost or worse.
Not a roll of the dice... Conditions WERE right and skill levels WERE adequate, except maybe the skills/gear testing of the mechanic that did the gear work.
Dave Krall CFII
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2005
- Messages
- 5,022
- Location
- Seattle WA
- Display Name
Display name:
Dave Krall CFII SEL SES, Cmcl HELI
Steve said:
Risk wise actually, I know of no injuries sustained from attempting this maneuver which does not in itself require PTS training to be successful ( but I have not searched in detail). There are however, injuries on record from the gear up landings choice of dice rolls.
Dave Krall CFII
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2005
- Messages
- 5,022
- Location
- Seattle WA
- Display Name
Display name:
Dave Krall CFII SEL SES, Cmcl HELI
Steve said:
As always, skilled participants in ANY activity involving risk, continue to be routinely and erroneously judged by those with less skills, as being overly "dangerous" to themselves and others, when completing tasks beyond the abilities of those less skilled. While initially spectacular to the analytically undiscriminating yet judgmental eye, this maneuver under the conditions present, was simply not that big a deal to attempt and complete.
fgcason
En-Route
Dave Krall CFII said:
I REALLY hope you're just joking about that.
Even if it's a pristine FINE last-one-in-existence Centurion, it's still just a bunch of cleverly riveted together aluminum. No airplane regardless of how attached someone is to it justifies the risk of balling everyone up at 90mph on the runway. If you tangle the plane and truck up, the plane is extremely likely to be mangled severely during the ensuing near instant forced landing.
From that picture I see: Low level Vmc formation flying with a truck on the blind side of the plane from the pilots perspective. Truck driver is trying to watch the nose of the plane over his shoulder and the runway ahead of him at the same time. (Is this conductive to safe formation flight/driving?) Everyone is doing this in a hurry since the end of the runway is rushing up to meet the truck right now. (I also wonder what would happen and how everyone would react, if he drug the sick wheel on the pavement)
IMHO: This is an inconvience situation, not life and death situation as long as you don't do anything dumb. Run the fuel way down then slide on as gently as possible (engine off) with the gear up should minimize damage and bodily risk. I highly suspect an all gear up slide on is likely to cause way less damage than one main hanging loose and spinning it around at speed in the weeds and bending all sorts of stuff.
Damage: Prop, engine, firewall, belly scraped off, very likely belly former damage, probably a handful of other things messed up. Jack it up, put it on a trailer, haul to shop, fix, fly it again.
Besides one's ability to sleep at night with a clear concience afterward, I wonder what one's insurance agent would say when one makes the call and says "We tore the crap out of it in the ditch, and oh, by the way, I split some guys head open with the prop trying to save the plane, but we should be able to find his head in the bushes when it gets light out tomorrow."
Sure he got away with it. So did the last guy. The basic skills may be there in general but eventually someone is bound to get killed doing this trying to save an engine and couple sheets of aircraft grade aluminum.
I may not be an expert by any stretch of the imagination but I've been around the pattern a few times and spent a great deal of time around machinery and potentially very dangerous places. I do not endorse this method of save-the-aircraft, no way, no how. Potential hazard >> potential successful advantage.
My two marbles worth...
Last edited:
Dave Krall CFII
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2005
- Messages
- 5,022
- Location
- Seattle WA
- Display Name
Display name:
Dave Krall CFII SEL SES, Cmcl HELI
fgcason said:
Yeah, I thought about it some more and realized I was wrong.
It wouldn't be worth risking three lives but, as when a fully PAX loaded Centurion takes off routinely, it would actually be worth risking all of 6 lives or even more, since neither activity is all that risky to begin with, and way more often than not, nobody gets even a scratch in either one.
quote: "(I also wonder what would happen and how everyone would react, if he drug the sick wheel on the pavement)"
What would happen, you wonder ? A small black tire skid mark would be burned onto the runway from the momentarily dragged tire.
All kinds of bad things COULD happen if the people involved LET them happen but the idea successfully achieved by them is NOT to let those types of things happen, rather than to be overcome by irrational fears of what would happen if they did somehow occur even in the face of due diligence and skill.
But then any pilot incapable of simply performing the basic pilot maneuver of holding an aircraft vector down the runway (+/- one foot) while well within the performance enhancing ground effect envelope and in the observed favorable wind/long, wide runway/no conflicting traffic conditions present at the time and analyzed with considerable competent forethought by multiple individuals; definitely shouldn't try the maneuver in question, nor be flying unsupervised.
And even having in this case demonstrated that the pilot is indeed repeatedly able to do the above simple task, the main actions and pursuant time sensitive reactivity, when necessary, is obviously undertaken by the more precisely maneuverable truck team. It is only one compound element of safety, highly significant but easily ignored by casual observers, of many significant safety factors instrumental in their ultimately complete and safe success, and concomitant with why they wisely chose to use a LONG stick.
fgcason
En-Route
Re: A Bad Save
I wouldn't say it's fear as much as qualification. 100% of the team is inexperienced in this operation (saw it in a cartoon once and grab some people who probably weren't watching cartoons that morning). 25% of the team can fly a straight line low level. 75% of the team is a complete unknown to the pilot who must completely trust them to do something they've never done before in close proximity to dynamic machinery in his blind spot. 100% of the team is depending on nothing going wrong and has no clue if this will work in the first place.
You can eliminate a whopping chunk of the risk by not getting the truck involved.
Others can do what they want. That's up to them and their concience.
Safety/hazard/advantage limits just are not adding up here. I'm just not seeing a compelling argument for doing this short of maybe possibly being able to not scratch some aluminum. Hazard vs reward.
If it works, you're the hero of the day.
If it doesn't work, you're the crazy pilot that trashed a plane plus a truck, seriously injured or killed most likely 2 and possibly 4 people and your insurance company doesn't know who you are and never saw that tail number in their life.
IMHO: I'll use those long sticks on the jack points to lift it up to put it on the trailer after sliding it on and go to bed that night with a clear concience knowing nobody got hurt or killed.
Just my two marbles worth...
Dave Krall CFII said:
I wouldn't say it's fear as much as qualification. 100% of the team is inexperienced in this operation (saw it in a cartoon once and grab some people who probably weren't watching cartoons that morning). 25% of the team can fly a straight line low level. 75% of the team is a complete unknown to the pilot who must completely trust them to do something they've never done before in close proximity to dynamic machinery in his blind spot. 100% of the team is depending on nothing going wrong and has no clue if this will work in the first place.
You can eliminate a whopping chunk of the risk by not getting the truck involved.
Dave Krall CFII said:
Others can do what they want. That's up to them and their concience.
Safety/hazard/advantage limits just are not adding up here. I'm just not seeing a compelling argument for doing this short of maybe possibly being able to not scratch some aluminum. Hazard vs reward.
If it works, you're the hero of the day.
If it doesn't work, you're the crazy pilot that trashed a plane plus a truck, seriously injured or killed most likely 2 and possibly 4 people and your insurance company doesn't know who you are and never saw that tail number in their life.
IMHO: I'll use those long sticks on the jack points to lift it up to put it on the trailer after sliding it on and go to bed that night with a clear concience knowing nobody got hurt or killed.
Just my two marbles worth...
Dave Krall CFII
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2005
- Messages
- 5,022
- Location
- Seattle WA
- Display Name
Display name:
Dave Krall CFII SEL SES, Cmcl HELI
Re: A Bad Save
Your math still leaves a lot to be corrected.
A big part of the 75% that you call "Unknown" was a race car driver in the pickup cab probably used to tapping car bumpers routinly at well over twice the speeds used here. But anybody raised on freeway driving could have also done as well.
Other than the pilot flying steady, (pilot doesn't need to see the truck at all) and at least some widely available freeway speeding experience, no other specialized "experience " is needed what so ever, as has been shown repeatedly.
fgcason said:
Your math still leaves a lot to be corrected.
A big part of the 75% that you call "Unknown" was a race car driver in the pickup cab probably used to tapping car bumpers routinly at well over twice the speeds used here. But anybody raised on freeway driving could have also done as well.
Other than the pilot flying steady, (pilot doesn't need to see the truck at all) and at least some widely available freeway speeding experience, no other specialized "experience " is needed what so ever, as has been shown repeatedly.