Gear Failure - Grass or Pavement?

Lowflynjack

Lowflynjack

En-Route
Joined
Oct 28, 2014
Messages
4,309
Display Name
Display name:
Jack Fleetwood
I've never had to land gear-up. However, I've always heard if you have a choice, land on pavement. It doesn't seem logical, but they say there is less damage to the plane and there is less risk of flipping over.

I just saw a FB post on the 'Cessna 177 Cardinal Friends' page where a guy had a gear failure and flew 40 miles to get to a grass runway. He was successful and the plane looks like it was gently set in the grass, so obviously it worked well this time.

Thoughts? Any of you had a gear-up landing? Grass or pavement and how did it go?
 
At some of my local airports if you try landing on the grass next to the pavement you are going to hit some hard-to-see drainage culverts. We do have a couple of grass rwys nearby, but how much damage would a gear up landing do to a grass rwy? I don't know.
 
Matthew said:
At some of my local airports if you try landing on the grass next to the pavement you are going to hit some hard-to-see drainage culverts. We do have a couple of grass rwys nearby, but how much damage would a gear up landing do to a grass rwy? I don't know.
Click to expand...
For this discussion, I’m assuming grass runway in good condition vs pavement in good condition.
 
The usual answer I have seen to this (it comes up here at least annually) is, .....pavement.

(PS did that guy find any CFR teams waiting to assist him when he landed on that grass? Guessing not. Lots of pavement options do have that)
 
This is a big internal debate for me but ultimately I think I would choose pavement. What worries me about pavement is that all of my fuel sumps are on the belly so chances of catching fire are extremely high. The flip side "pun intended" is that with my short air frame and big engine the odds of flipping on my back landing on grass are very high. Combine that with the remaining possibility of catching fire from spilling gas leads me towards the pavement decision.
 
I would venture to say that if you land a high-winged plane on grass you'll be less likely to cartwheel than if you do the same with a low-winged plane. But I'd have them oil up the runway, and stop my prop so that it won't likely touch [in my dreams!]
 
Definitely pavement runway before grass runway for me every time. Preferably at an airport with good repair shop and rental cars ('cause you're gonna need a ride home). I've heard concerns over sparks and the fuel sumps before. But I've not been able to find any cases where a fire has actually happened because of it. I can't say it hasn't happened. But I can say I've looked and couldn't find any examples of it.
 
Smooth, even pavement everytime at an airport with emergency services.

Even a well maintained grass or dirt runway can be uneven with shallow dips. Feral hogs, gophers and prairie dogs can damage the runway over night.

But in reality, I no longer care about a plane that has let me down. If I have to destroy the plane to protect myself and passengers, then that is what will happen. Anyone that thinks they need to protect the plane is not someone I wish to fly with.

And if that airport has a bar, even better.!!
 
Zeldman said:
Smooth, even pavement everytime at an airport with emergency services.

Even a well maintained grass or dirt runway can be uneven with shallow dips. Feral hogs, gophers and prairie dogs can damage the runway over night.

But in reality, I no longer care about a plane that has let me down. If I have to destroy the plane to protect myself and passengers, then that is what will happen. Anyone that thinks they need to protect the plane is not someone I wish to fly with.

And if that airport has a bar, even better.!!
Click to expand...


You're right about priorities: the insurance company holds the bag; everyone's gonna walk away. Hopefully, if there's not a bar on-field, at least a package store nearby ( Was that you drinking from the brown paper sack?). Just sayin'.
 
If I have the choice, pavement all the way. Too many variables landing in the grass, and it doesn't necessary reduce the amount of damage. Put it on the pavement, have the fire guys at the ready for the rare case of fire (how many gear ups have ever actually resulted in fire?), get out and walk away.

I don't know why people get so worked up over an intentional gear up, saying their goodbyes, etc. You're going to bend some metal, you are going to walk away unscathed. Just don't twist your ankle or hit your head getting out with the plane sitting low.
 
Isn't the whole idea that if you are forced to do a gear-up landing, it is the insurance company's airplane anyway so smooth pavement, towered airport, and emergency services for me
 
Lowflynjack said:
I've never had to land gear-up. However, I've always heard if you have a choice, land on pavement. It doesn't seem logical, but they say there is less damage to the plane and there is less risk of flipping over.

I just saw a FB post on the 'Cessna 177 Cardinal Friends' page where a guy had a gear failure and flew 40 miles to get to a grass runway. He was successful and the plane looks like it was gently set in the grass, so obviously it worked well this time.

Thoughts? Any of you had a gear-up landing? Grass or pavement and how did it go?
Click to expand...
Pavement, EVERY time. BTDT in a Cardinal - didn't replace a single rivet... pics to prove it.
 
I’m going pavement, you never know what lurks in the grass.
 
I was involved in the repair of a 182RG that used the grass. The damage was pretty severe. Although it didn't dig in, I think is must have skipped a bit over the uneven places
 
Juliet Hotel said:
I've heard concerns over sparks and the fuel sumps before. But I've not been able to find any cases where a fire has actually happened because of it. I can't say it hasn't happened. But I can say I've looked and couldn't find any examples of it.
Click to expand...
Staggerwings are known for it, but the fuel drains are actually the lowest point on the airplane with the gear retracted. Even for most low wing airplanes that’s not the case.

I also think the danger of flipping over is overblown...you’d have to dig something in pretty hard, and if the gear isn’t sticking down, there’s not much else that can do it on a reasonably smooth surface.
 
Last edited:
I watched a T-34 with just a nose gear failure land in the grass next to the runway. It looked like mostly minor damage, cowling, prop blades and such. He was on his home field so I'm sure he knew the field well.
I also saw a Sabreliner land with all 3 in the wells on purpose on the pavement.
I can't fault either one, it's their choice, they knew each plane and field well and I wasn't the PIC.
 
Years ago I saw a NASA study of grass vs. pavement for gear up landings. The result was pavement.
 
Fortunately, NASA has already figured this out for us. It goes back to the 70's. NASA had a big, big gantry that was built at the Langley facility for testing space capsule land & water landings. Then, TS Agnes hit Pennsylvania with wide spread flooding. Among the areas flooded was Piper at Lockhaven. There were a lot of Navajoes on the flooded assembly line that could not be completed. NASA got them. They sent them to Langley. They received dummies, cameras, G-meters and were hoisted up on that gantry. When the head engineer dropped his hankie, the test article was released. It was suspended in a landing attitude and swung down in an arc. It contacted the surface in a perfect belly landing attitude. the surface was varied, bare concrete, dirt, dirt with sod. The G-meters told the story. The concrete presented the least amount of friction and the airframe suffered the least amount of damage. Dirt (about 4-5 feet deep and packed) with sod overlay caused the most damage.
Fast fwd to the 80's to the 2000's. I checked "my little list of emergencies." and found 5 or 6 unsafe gear items. About a fifth of the list. Once, while solo, I found myself looking at the hyd gauge for no reason and it went to zero right there. Used the blow down bottle. I managed to muddle through these gear incidents without a belly landing. Thankfully, NASA's tests played back in my mind and I had plans formulated.
 
SoCal RV Flyer said:
I'm going to avoid the problem entirely by never flying a retractable!!
Click to expand...

"Never" is a very long time. ;)

Lowflynjack said:
...I just saw a FB post on the 'Cessna 177 Cardinal Friends' page where a guy had a gear failure and flew 40 miles to get to a grass runway. He was successful and the plane looks like it was gently set in the grass, so obviously it worked well this time...
Click to expand...

Seems to imply the pilot was concerned about "saving the plane". I think it helps to periodically go through the mental exercise of dispelling the importance of that criteria. As others have posted, the plane is expendable. That's why we have insurance.
 
Maxnr said:
Fortunately, NASA has already figured this out for us. It goes back to the 70's. NASA had a big, big gantry that was built at the Langley facility for testing space capsule land & water landings. Then, TS Agnes hit Pennsylvania with wide spread flooding. Among the areas flooded was Piper at Lockhaven. There were a lot of Navajoes on the flooded assembly line that could not be completed. NASA got them. They sent them to Langley. They received dummies, cameras, G-meters and were hoisted up on that gantry. When the head engineer dropped his hankie, the test article was released. It was suspended in a landing attitude and swung down in an arc. It contacted the surface in a perfect belly landing attitude. the surface was varied, bare concrete, dirt, dirt with sod. The G-meters told the story. The concrete presented the least amount of friction and the airframe suffered the least amount of damage. Dirt (about 4-5 feet deep and packed) with sod overlay caused the most damage.
Fast fwd to the 80's to the 2000's. I checked "my little list of emergencies." and found 5 or 6 unsafe gear items. About a fifth of the list. Once, while solo, I found myself looking at the hyd gauge for no reason and it went to zero right there. Used the blow down bottle. I managed to muddle through these gear incidents without a belly landing. Thankfully, NASA's tests played back in my mind and I had plans formulated.
Click to expand...
I used to like driving past that gantry when I lived there. All sorts of crashed aircraft next to it.

There lots of crash test videos.

Here’s one, skip to the 1:00 mark. There’s another one at about 4:00.


 
Matthew said:
I used to like driving past that gantry when I lived there. All sorts of crashed aircraft next to it.

There lots of crash test videos.

Here’s one, skip to the 1:00 mark. There’s another one at about 4:00.


Click to expand...

I honestly don’t know what they are testing but that did not represent an airplane in a landing flare. If you go in nose first at 100 kts it’s gonna hurt regardless.
 
woodchucker said:
I honestly don’t know what they are testing but that did not represent an airplane in a landing flare. If you go in nose first at 100 kts it’s gonna hurt regardless.
Click to expand...
Survivability of ELT gear, safety harnesses and other things were part of that test, I believe. Also ways structures could be improved for impact. I'm sure a number of accidents have looked like this when pilots have mis-judged terrain on an off-field landing.
 
woodchucker said:
I honestly don’t know what they are testing but that did not represent an airplane in a landing flare. If you go in nose first at 100 kts it’s gonna hurt regardless.
Click to expand...
They can change the angle of impact depending on what they want to test. Yeah, that one would hurt.
 
GRG55 said:
Seems to imply the pilot was concerned about "saving the plane". I think it helps to periodically go through the mental exercise of dispelling the importance of that criteria. As others have posted, the plane is expendable. That's why we have insurance.
Click to expand...
Keep two things in mind...

First, if you “save the plane”, the occupants are probably going to be unharmed.

Second while the primary concern should still be the occupants, but there’s nothing that says if the primary concern is satisfied either way, the choice to save the plane can be made as well. Insurance or not.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Keep two things in mind...

First, if you “save the plane”, the occupants are probably going to be unharmed...
Click to expand...

That seems self evident.

But often when a pilot makes decisions in an apparent effort to save the plane, and fails, the occupants perish.
All of us, I am certain, are familiar with far too many examples of this. This is amplified when it comes to piston twins, but even in a single acts like trying to "stretch the glide" to a bad result are not uncommon. And how many pre-2010 Cirrus fatalities were the result of the pilot not deploying the CAPS? Were they trying to save the airframe?

Thanks, but I'm sticking with my belief that the instant anything serious goes wrong my insurance company has made me a binding offer to purchase the plane at hull loss value. And my job is to get me, and everyone in it, safely on the ground no matter what. Even if it requires closing both throttles and putting it down wings level, straight ahead. I couldn't give a tinkers damn about saving the airframe, engines or props from being written off.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top