Pulled gear up on touchdown, bad result

[Tom-D]

Is there anything else I'm supposed to do?

Yes, call the FAA and declare the accident. the prop repair is enough monitory value to make this an accident.

Let the cards fall where they may.

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...k_management/ss_handbook/media/app_a_1200.pdf

 

[Bill]

Next spend a solid hour doing slow flight, and I mean SLOW at least half the time the stall warning should be active and your speed shouldn't exceed 1.5Vso except at the beginning

Anytime I've been out of the air for a while the 1st thing I do is depart to the practice area and do slow flight and lots of stalls, especially landing config power off. Spend 45min in slow flight/stalls, then go back home and make a perfect landing. Works like a charm. Slow flight cures many ills.

 

[poadeleted20]

Yes, call the FAA and declare the accident. the prop repair is enough monitory value to make this an accident.

Let the cards fall where they may.

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli...k_management/ss_handbook/media/app_a_1200.pdf

Even if this did qualify as an "accident", calling the FAA is neither required nor appropriate. The only regulations on that point are the NTSB's, and they require calling the NTSB (not the FAA) in event of an accident. Further, no matter what the FAA may say in their Risk Management book, the NTSB definition of "accident" is the only one that matters for reporting requirements:

Aircraft accident means an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage. For purposes of this part, the definition of “aircraft accident” includes “unmanned aircraft accident,” as defined herein.

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.

..and by the above, it's entirely possible for the damage associated with an inadvertent gear retraction to fall short of that definition, meaning no NTSB report would be required.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Even if this did qualify as an "accident", calling the FAA is neither required nor appropriate. The only regulations on that point are the NTSB's, and they require calling the NTSB (not the FAA) in event of an accident. Further, no matter what the FAA may say in their Risk Management book, the NTSB definition of "accident" is the only one that matters for reporting requirements:

..and by the above, it's entirely possible for the damage associated with an inadvertent gear retraction to fall short of that definition, meaning no NTSB report would be required.

FWIW, every gear up landing I have personally known of showed up in the FAA's daily list of preliminary accident reports.

 

[poadeleted20]

FWIW, every gear up landing I have personally known of showed up in the FAA's daily list of preliminary accident reports.

I could not truthfully say the same.

 

[Ghery]

The flap lever is shaped like a little wing. The gear lever is shaped like a little wheel.

...and (for those unfamiliar) the older Mooney's have a gear lever between the seats.

Cherokee Arrow: Flap J-bar between seats, electric gear switch on panel.
Older Mooney: Gear J-bar between seats, electric flap switch on panel.

Y'all be careful, now, hear?

Exactamundo! All my complex time is in a 1969 PA-28R-200, so I don't really worry about confusing the gear and flaps. However, if I get the chance to fly something else...

 

[RotorAndWing]

It's a gray area on whether to report or not.

It was an instructional flight, and if it comes to light to the FSDO later on the CFI involved may come under additional scrutiny.

Ya'll be careful now, ya hear?

 

[Tom-D]

..and by the above, it's entirely possible for the damage associated with an inadvertent gear retraction to fall short of that definition, meaning no NTSB report would be required.

You don't call a bent prop substantial damage. I'll bet the insurance company does.

CYA call the FAA/NTSB have the accident recorded. I've seen whole flight schools come under the microscope over less.

Like has been said, If they must come get you, they'll bring an asswhooping with them.

 

[Unregistered]

BTW, when I went through VT-1 in 1973, the Navy was just leaving the flaps down for T&G's in T-34B's, and that's what we did in the fleet, too (all types on the carrier). Can't screw it up if you don't touch it.

That's how it's still done. In the T-6 the flaps are left alone until you're climbing away on upwind. In the jets (T-45/F-18) the flaps stay down until you're either cleaning up climbing out of the pattern, or exiting the duty runway at taxi speed.

 

[paflyer]

Kinda late for the "unregistered user", but:
1) Renter's insurance
2) AOPA legal plan

 

[Henning]

Exactamundo! All my complex time is in a 1969 PA-28R-200, so I don't really worry about confusing the gear and flaps. However, if I get the chance to fly something else...

You will not confuse the Piper flap bar for the Mooney gear bar lol, I promise that.

 

[ClimbnSink]

You don't call a bent prop substantial damage. I'll bet the insurance company does.

CYA call the FAA/NTSB have the accident recorded. I've seen whole flight schools come under the microscope over less.

Like has been said, If they must come get you, they'll bring an asswhooping with them.

Doesn't matter how the insurance company describes it, the rules exclude gear/props/belly skin. Besides if their was one the Asswhooping would be on the CFI, not the OP. We had a club plane engine failure that made the runway, no damage, uncontrolled field and when the local faa lady heard about it she was all crankythat she wasn't told. Screw em, their rules don't require it. Never volunteer for extra interaction with your masters.

 

[Tom-D]

Doesn't matter how the insurance company describes it, the rules exclude gear/props/belly skin. Besides if their was one the Asswhooping would be on the CFI, not the OP. We had a club plane engine failure that made the runway, no damage, uncontrolled field and when the local faa lady heard about it she was all crankythat she wasn't told. Screw em, their rules don't require it. Never volunteer for extra interaction with your masters.

with all the advice given here, I still advise the OP to call FSDO explain what happened and ask what they should do.
Because it is the FAA/NTSB they will deal with, not the posters here.
It may just be an incident, but the FSDO makes that decision not the folks here.

Until that decision is made no one here can tell for certain what should be done.

Some one must report this to the insurance company they will have questions, That may just lead to the FAA getting involved, late and irritated.

 

[poadeleted20]

You don't call a bent prop substantial damage.

What I call it doesn't matter in this context.

I'll bet the insurance company does.

What the insurance company calls it doesn't matter in this context.

All that matters in this context is what the NTSB calls it, and they say:

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.

 

[poadeleted20]

with all the advice given here, I still advise the OP to call FSDO explain what happened and ask what they should do.

Why? Is there a regulation requiring that? Will it change the eventual outcome in any way if you call them before they call you? I'm all for following the rules, but this isn't required by the rules and there's no sense inviting FAA attention if you don't have to. Yes, if you think it's really "substantial damage" as the NTSB defines it (see above), you absolutely must call the NTSB "immediately, and by the most expeditious means available", but that's the end of it.

 

[FastEddieB]

Cap'n Ron,

Re: "...ground damage to rotor or propeller blades..."

Is that defined anywhere?

I always assumed it meant damage from a ground operation - hitting a pylon or pothole while taxiing, let's say.

But that hitting a prop while landing would be during a flight operation.

I can see it both ways.

 

[JHW]

FWIW, every gear up landing I have personally known of showed up in the FAA's daily list of preliminary accident reports.

Opposite for me. Of the 6 or 7 i have helped lift and haul, i doubt there is any government paper on any of them.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Opposite for me. Of the 6 or 7 i have helped lift and haul, i doubt there is any government paper on any of them.

Out of curiosity, where they at towered or uncontrolled airports? The few that I have personally known about where all at towered fields. Not sure if that had anything to do with it.

 

[poadeleted20]

Cap'n Ron,

Re: "...ground damage to rotor or propeller blades..."

Is that defined anywhere?

I always assumed it meant damage from a ground operation - hitting a pylon or pothole while taxiing, let's say.

But that hitting a prop while landing would be during a flight operation.

I can see it both ways.

AFAIK, it's not defined in 49 CFR Part 830, and as such, would mean whatever the NTSB's Chief Counsel or case law says it does, and I know of no interpretation or case on point.

 

[azure]

AFAIK, it's not defined in 49 CFR Part 830, and as such, would mean whatever the NTSB's Chief Counsel or case law says it does, and I know of no interpretation or case on point.

Now you've done it. Somebody is going to ask the GC, and next thing you know we'll probably have to report hangar rash.

 

[ChrisK]

Cap'n Ron,

Re: "...ground damage to rotor or propeller blades..."

Is that defined anywhere?

I always assumed it meant damage from a ground operation - hitting a pylon or pothole while taxiing, let's say.

But that hitting a prop while landing would be during a flight operation.

I can see it both ways.

I know of circumstances where a prop strike on landing due to runway overrun was classified as an incident and did not result in an NTSB report.

 

[Fearless Tower]

I know of circumstances where a prop strike on landing due to runway overrun was classified as an incident and did not result in an NTSB report.

What definition of incident are you using? NTSB covers some 'incidents' as well accidents.

 

[JHW]

Out of curiosity, where they at towered or uncontrolled airports? The few that I have personally known about where all at towered fields. Not sure if that had anything to do with it.

No tower

 

[ChrisK]

What definition of incident are you using? NTSB covers some 'incidents' as well accidents.

The FAA informed the pilot that the NTSB classified the above as an incident. The case was closed after two telephone interviews and no NTSB report was filed as far as I can tell by searching the NTSB database for the airport in question. PM me for more

 

[Tom-D]

Why? Is there a regulation requiring that? Will it change the eventual outcome in any way if you call them before they call you? I'm all for following the rules, but this isn't required by the rules and there's no sense inviting FAA attention if you don't have to. Yes, if you think it's really "substantial damage" as the NTSB defines it (see above), you absolutely must call the NTSB "immediately, and by the most expeditious means available", but that's the end of it.

Every thing isn't about rules and regulations, some times you need to directly to the horses mouth and CYA. I'd go the extra mile to be sure the FAA knows and buys off on this, Just simply because the CFI might come up with a different view as to what happened and the flight school blames the student.

Simply give the FAA the opportunity to say what they will.

 

[gismo]

Doesn't stop them from being confused, just makes it harder to do, although the accident history suggests it isn't hard enough to prevent this mistake if you start grabbing things in a hurry.

A part of standard human behavior is that our brains learn sequences of movement (e.g. playing a familiar piece on the piano) with the majority of the sequence being pretty much automatic after the first movement. As a result, after you have raised the gear many times, if you simply touch the gear switch (in error) there's a good chance you will follow through and perform the movements necessary to raise the gear without further thought or deliberate action.

 

[poadeleted20]

Every thing isn't about rules and regulations, some times you need to directly to the horses mouth and CYA.

How does calling the FAA cover your "A" when there is no requirement to do so nor any punishment for failing to do so? All it does is call attention to something which they might not otherwise even hear about.

I'd go the extra mile to be sure the FAA knows and buys off on this,

What do you mean "buys off on this"? What requirement is there for the FAA do "buy off on" what happened?

Just simply because the CFI might come up with a different view as to what happened and the flight school blames the student.

What does the FAA have to do with what happens between the instructor, the school, and whatever insurers are involved?

Simply give the FAA the opportunity to say what they will.

Why?

 

[Tom-D]

How does calling the FAA cover your "A"

If you can't figure that out there is no point in continuing.

 

[Tom-D]

I'll wager the FAA already knows.

from 8020-11B chg. 1
b. How to Report.
(1) The AT facility first receiving notification of a known accident or a suspected accident shall make and record initial notification using FAA Form 8020-3, which is a list of contacts (see Appendix 2). Managers shall ensure that copies of FAA Form 8020-3 with telephone numbers inserted are available. Notification to the nearest National Weather Service (NWS) of known or suspected accidents in which any person suffers death or serious injury or the aircraft received substantial damage is mandatory. Unless otherwise outlined in a letter of agreement between the respective region and the NWS, notify the nearest NWS office or forecast center. Initial notification is based on preliminary information. FAA Form 8020-3 is not used for AT incidents. See paragraphs 80 to 89 for reporting AT incidents.

end quote

If that airport has a manager, and they got involved the report went in.

Chapter 4 para 119
119. REGIONAL FLIGHT STANDARDS DIVISION RESPONSIBILITIES. The manager of the regional Flight Standards division is responsible for ensuring that aircraft accidents and incidents in the region's geographic area of responsibility are investigated and reported in a manner that ensures the proper discharge of FAA responsibilities.

Pretty much sums it up, they need to know, they will know.

It's a long boring read.

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/8020.11B.pdf

 

[Mike5250]

I just finished a 1hr checkout in a Piper arrow and was surprised the instructor requested touch and go's. i did tell him to raise flaps upon touchdown and that I would handle the rest.

My feeling is the CFI is at fault if he was required for the flight (checkout, complex rating, insurance, etc). If you were on an instrument training, bfr, etc I would say CFI was along for ride and not at fault.

Good reminder for everyone to have renters insurance.

 

[davidm767]

I'm too familiar with gear up issues, in my (to some...short) 15 year experience I have witnessed two and heard from a few close colleagues of many others. I alway revert to my training when I teach in complex aircraft in a multi-pilot environment, and still verbalize in a single pilot environment. Maybe its the fear of screwing the pooch when I know that comes way to easy in our world.

I am VERY strict on this routine and will chastise when not followed...call me AR but it has saved my Bacon at least once (pump failure). Two sets of eyes are better than one

For gear extension: PF: "Below XXX (KIAS), gear down....three green, no red"
---Base Leg: PF: Three Green
---Final: PF: Three Green Verify...CFI: Three Green Verified...Proceed
--- T&G: PF: Flaps Identified CFI: Flaps Verified---PF: Flaps Up

If the OP was referring to a model checkout and not just a complex endorsement, both pilots should have been a little more aware of their surroundings. But with out a deeply engrained sense of caution, complacency is a very common hazard trap. I tend to be more over-cautious with a experienced pilot than I am with a newer pilot when giving model checkouts. Why? a student pilot tends to still have that fear that they will screw it up, and tend to be a scared of the danger when grabbing handles. Additionally it allows me to train them in sound practices to avoid complacency. Whereas the experienced pilot already has what they came with and is hard to break them of primacy if I judge them as complacent or lax in gear extension/retraction techniques.

Case in point...a 12,000+ hour former military, airline, CFI/MEI-I local flight school owner lined up for final in their schools Seneca and got waived around by tower because they didnt have their gear down by short final....who was sitting in the pilot seat? The Owner...the Instructor seat? One of their new-hire MEI's receiving their 5 hours PIC in model. It happens more often than one likes, training and a healthy respect can go a long way in preventing it though.

 

[Hank S]

Three checks were beat into me when I transitioned in the Mooney with 62 hours. I keep it fresh by remembering that a gear up will end my flying . . . there won't be enough money left over after I pay my part and sign up for insurance. Sometimes a little fear is healthy.

I drop gear on downwind, verify the green light on base, and on final I verify the green light and point at the mechanical floor indicator [also green]. I also enjoy the thump in the seat as the gear lock down.

 

[Lindberg]

As someone with zero experience in retracts, I've got to ask why this is possible. Why aren't the systems designed so the gear won't cycle on the ground?

 

[FastEddieB]

As someone with zero experience in retracts, I've got to ask why this is possible. Why aren't the systems designed so the gear won't cycle on the ground?

Normally, they are.

They are called squat switches, and with weight on the gear it's not supposed to retract.

But...

1) They malfunction, and,

2) A bump can momentarily unload them, allowing the gear to cycle.

 

[bgdriveway]

Assuming they were checked at the last inspection and are still operational... there are squat switches designed into the aircraft. Most are on the mains, Cessna retracts are on the nose.

If the strut is fully extended, the switch allows gear to come up. Light on wheels, gear can come up. Depends where the switch is and how it's been rigged.

Oh and there are a few that are also tied to airspeed too, but not many of them are that way.

 

[jordane93]

This is a good lesson. I started training in an complex for the first time last week for my Commercial rating. My CFI is always asking me if we have three green, no red. He said do the GUMPS checklist again and if you think you've done it enough times, do it again

 

[Henning]

I bet if we started training day one in retracts, there would be less gear up accidents; law of primacy and all that. I was taught to do a "gear down and welded" from day one though, "always look for the gear and get a visual confirmation you have gear 3 times." It has stuck with me. 1400 some of 2500 some hrs are retract and I haven't come close to forgetting the gear, gets a triple visual every time even if all I can see are the switches and lights, but mirrors on the nacelles let me see them on my plane.

I did my HP and complex as part of my PP and flew nearly exclusively retract from 41.5TT to 1200TT, mostly multi engine. Then I flew nearly exclusively fixed gear tail draggers for the next 1200 hrs sporadically over 10 years on Ag and pipeline jobs. After that anther near 200 hrs of multi between two 310s, mine and a T-310R, never came close to not thinking about the gear, even on a repair check flight when I lost the turbo on takeoff.

Make a triple gear check regardless the plane you are in, every time, it's one of those good habits you try to foster; it's taught to a lot of people and seems to work, lots of people remember to put the gear down every day.

As for the T&G scenario, you better have it down or have backup.

 

[Z06_Mir]

I bet if we started training day one in retracts, there would be less gear up accidents; law of primacy and all that. I was taught to do a "gear down and welded" from day one though, "always look for the gear and get a visual confirmation you have gear 3 times." It has stuck with me. 1400 some of 2500 some hrs are retract and I haven't come close to forgetting the gear, gets a triple visual every time even if all I can see are the switches and lights, but mirrors on the nacelles let me see them on my plane.

I did my HP and complex as part of my PP and flew nearly exclusively retract from 41.5TT to 1200TT, mostly multi engine. Then I flew nearly exclusively fixed gear tail draggers for the next 1200 hrs sporadically over 10 years on Ag and pipeline jobs. After that anther near 200 hrs of multi between two 310s, mine and a T-310R, never came close to not thinking about the gear, even on a repair check flight when I lost the turbo on takeoff.

Make a triple gear check regardless the plane you are in, every time, it's one of those good habits you try to foster; it's taught to a lot of people and seems to work, lots of people remember to put the gear down every day.

As for the T&G scenario, you better have it down or have backup.

I pretty much agree with all this. 250 of my 350 hours are in a retract and I get a little more retract time every day. I flew a retract at 80 hours for the first time and now even if I'm flying a fixed gear I fly it the same way as I fly my retract. IMO an important part of retract training is consistency, don't change things, aka don't sometimes put it down on the downwind and sometimes on base... do it the same every time all the time.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Assuming they were checked at the last inspection and are still operational... there are squat switches designed into the aircraft. Most are on the mains, Cessna retracts are on the nose.



If the strut is fully extended, the switch allows gear to come up. Light on wheels, gear can come up. Depends where the switch is and how it's been rigged./QUOTE]
This is what typically gets the Cessna RG folks when it happens. As the nose gets light and they start to rotate, the nose gear will start to retract well before flying speed and the prop hits.

Oh and there are a few that are also tied to airspeed too, but not many of them are that way.

Pipers and the Beech Duchess come to mind.

As had been said, sometimes the safeties don't work. We had a CFI back in San Diego that was checking a student out in the club Duchess. On the ground without even running the engines, she pulls the gear switch up to 'demonstrate' the safety. IAW Murphy's law, it failed and the nose gear folded up right there in the tiedowns. She refused to believe she did anything wrong. Idiot.