Van Nuys Twin Nose Gear Failure Happening Now

OtisAir

OtisAir

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
642
Location
Lansdale
Display Name
Display name:
OtisAir
On Fox News Now - Van Nuys C310 circling to burn fuel. Nose gear not secured in down position and will collapse upon touchdown.

The story is happening now @ 14:35 EST.
 
OtisAir said:
On Fox News Now - Van Nuys C310 circling to burn fuel. Nose gear not secured in down position and will collapse upon touchdown.

The story is happening now @ 14:35 EST.
Click to expand...
I hope all you guys in Van nuys are taking cover, this could destroy the whole town!!! Shame that these dangerous small planes are allowed to fly where ever they want! :rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
Last edited:
It's an older C310- about a '60 (D Model) or earlier. Square tail and tuna tip tanks.

FOX is now claiming the pilot will be putting it down within the hr. And of course, they are making a much bigger deal out of this than it is! (Though, no doubt it IS a big deal to the pilot and pax!) The pilot seems to be doing all the right things so far, and according to the reports, he has a plan for setting it down.

The nose gear seems to be jammed in the gear doors.

A similar situation happened to a buddy of mine in COS, when the nose strut did not have sufficient nitrogen charge to extend the strut when it retracted. This caused the wheel assembly to jam into the door rods, preventing it from extending.
 
Hmmm... it does seem the nose gear is tweaked to the right side, almost as if one side of the strut pivot has broken loose.

Also just reported, 2 SoB...

N2651C- Its a 1955 registration, registered to Jade Aviation in Carson City Nevada.

It was filed from VNY (Van Nuys) to CMA (Camarillo). Maybe the pilot realized the problem right after take off, since he is still circling VNY. Perhaps the gear never retracted, rather than it being an extension issue.
 
Last edited:
OK, here's a stupid question: Is the max t/o weight and max landing weight different in twins such as this? Or is he burning fuel just for overall safety of the landing?
 
IMO, it's merely for safety. The Ma T/o and Landing weights are the same. But from my buddy's past experience, the tip tanks do not come near the ground, unless he loses control as the nose settles, and rolls it over.

Should this pilot decide to set up high, and shut off the engines and glide it in (as my buddy did), the props should be completely stopped prior to the nose touching. Especially if he feathers them!

My buddy didn't even have a prop strike! Which was a great thing as he had just overhauled the engines and stc'd 3 bladed props...
 
Here it comes....! Engines are off, props are stopped.. Safely down! Very well done! Congrats to the pilot for executing a great emergency landing!

It did get the props, though... They stopped in a vertical position.
Correction- at the last moment, the pilot was able to hit the starters enough to reposition the props mostly horizontal. There may still have been some contact, but greatly reduced...
 
Last edited:
colomtnflyer said:
Here it comes....! Engines are off, props are stopped.. Safely down! Very well done! Congrats to the pilot for executing a great emergency landing!

It did get the props, though... They stopped in a vertical position.
Correction- at the last moment, the pilot was able to hit the starters enough to reposition the props mostly horizontal. There may still have been some contact, but greatly reduced...
Click to expand...

OK, THAT's some situational awareness. Either that, or owner's awareness!
 
Nicely done. Now he should send Fox a check for providing them with free entertainment, uh, I mean, footage of an almost certainly deathly accident!

-Felix
 
It always amazes me just how bad the media are when it comes to reporting facts.

"The Cessna 310 is a twin-engine turbo-prop plane developed after World War II and popular with air taxi and air charter services." (link)

Interesting. I guess they can't call it a "small" plane anymore once it has two engines?
 
"Out of the blue of the western sky comes ..."

Oh well, this generation of "journalists" are all too young to remember Sky King.

[Edit] Update! This [trumpet fanfare] "Great Moment in Aviation 'Journalism'" is brought to you by the Los Angeles Times:
The plane flew over the Valencia area for less than an hour to burn off its remaining 80 gallons of fuel before landing.
​
That's quite some fuel consumption for an old C-310, eh wot? :rolleyes:

Oh, and according to this article the airplane was "flown by a private citizen." As opposed to ... ? :confused:
 
Last edited:
Pilawt said:
"Out of the blue of the western sky comes ..."

Oh well, this generation of "journalists" are all too young to remember Sky King.
Click to expand...
There are like 4 generations that are too young to remember Sky king. me being one of them but I have knowledge of it from my extensive useless TV trivia background. ;)
 
I just saw this on the local (Omaha, NE) news. Unbelievable how far this made it. This probably happens 2-3 times a day around the country.
 
Glad that he made it in safely! Good work on his part, for sure.
 
colomtnflyer said:
Here it comes....! Engines are off, props are stopped.. Safely down! Very well done! Congrats to the pilot for executing a great emergency landing!

It did get the props, though... They stopped in a vertical position.
Correction- at the last moment, the pilot was able to hit the starters enough to reposition the props mostly horizontal. There may still have been some contact, but greatly reduced...
Click to expand...

:yikes:

Is that a good ting ta do?

Ever see the FAA seminar about the guy who did that - shut down engines - bump - and landed short and flat in the grass and broke his back?
 
mikea said:
:yikes:

Is that a good ting ta do?

Ever see the FAA seminar about the guy who did that - shut down engines - bump - and landed short and flat in the grass and broke his back?
Click to expand...

The footage that I saw on the news showed the left prop stopping after he crossed the threshold. He was on a huge runway and used it well.
 
nddons said:
OK, here's a stupid question: Is the max t/o weight and max landing weight different in twins such as this? Or is he burning fuel just for overall safety of the landing?
Click to expand...

Just safety of less fuel on board, dont blame him a bit. I'd switch to the inboards and that would vent all the return fuel out through the overflowing mains to get all the fuel outboard and reduced in the minimum time, though I'd still be trying everything to get the gear broke loose and down.
 
Video...
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-plane-emergency-landing26-2008nov26,0,296799.story

Overall, I think he did a good job. But, as pilots, we can't help but to play Monday morning quarterback. He was paying a LOT of attention to getting those prop blades out of the way with the starters. You could see how unstable his final 100-200 ft were. He was all over the place. In my book, at the point that the green light doesn't light up the airplane belongs to the insurance company. If the engines have to be torn down, then so be it. Looks to me like he was way distracted trying to avoid that.

That said, he accomplished what could be considered the best possible outcome of light twin nose gear collapse.
 
A certain amount of him being all over the place probably had to do with losing the power. Ric can shed more light on how you land a 310, but on the Aztec I landed it with some power.

I saw another 310 do a similar landing about a year ago, he did much the same. What he did was wait on pulling the engines until after the mains touched the ground, which I think was a better strategy.

Ultimately, it's good to question this so that, should it ever happen to us, we already have in our heads what we'd do. Let's just try not to judge the guy too heavily. He and his passenger walked away from the incident, and the plane will be reusable. That's what matters.
 
He should have landed on a conveyor belt, significantly minimizing the damage to the AC.
 
felix made a valid point.

i did, and still will, land with power in the event of questionable gear. i may *if time allows* pull the mixture(s) after touchdown if time and workload allowed.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
A certain amount of him being all over the place probably had to do with losing the power. Ric can shed more light on how you land a 310, but on the Aztec I landed it with some power.
Click to expand...
I've always (in my vast 10-15 hours:yikes:) landed a 310 with power, basically flying it onto the runway.
 
gprellwitz said:
I've always (in my vast 10-15 hours:yikes:) landed a 310 with power, basically flying it onto the runway.
Click to expand...

Yep... I've actually also found that doing that with the Mooney sure helps make a greaser of a landing.
 
FlyNE said:
The footage that I saw on the news showed the left prop stopping after he crossed the threshold. He was on a huge runway and used it well.
Click to expand...

Ahh, no. The aircraft didn't make the runway - at least not in a traditional sense. The runway had a 1500' displaced threshold and he touched down short, in the pre-displaced threshold area. The nose was down and he was grinding to a stop as he crossed the threshold. The aircraft stopped just short of the "R" in One Six Right (yeah, that runway).
 
Last edited:
Well, he landed on pavement. While the landing itself was not technically what you'd want in terms of being past the displaced threshold (and I suspect he cut the power once he got over the threshold, knowing he'd be safe on the runway), it was still on pavement.

It would probably have made more sense to touch the mains down (or at least be really close to it) before pulling the props, assuming time and workload allowed.
 
Looks like he did a great job overall. Don't know if it was a smart idea trying to adjust the left prop again, seems like it distracted him from a smoother roundout. Hope the tail impact didn't cause to much damage.

Since the props were stopped, does the engine still require teardown? I suspect he saved quite a bit of money though shutting them down the way he did.
 
Quoted by sba55- "The Cessna 310 is a twin-engine turbo-prop plane developed after World War II and popular with air taxi and air charter services." (link)

WOW! Have I been neglecting to log my 310 time as "turbo-prop"? How could I have made such a mistake? And you know- working on them is as simple as a piston, too! :D

Landing a 310 deadstick as this pilot did it is always interesting. The flight characteristics get rather squirrely as you get slower, thusly why in an earlier post I suggested a STEEPER than normal approach path to allow the airspeed to be kept up, until the last possible moment.
The observation that "he was all over the place" could have been an airspeed issue, or any air movement as he got closer to the ground. (There was a front passing through SoCal yesterday)

As far as when this pilot made the decision to shut down his engines? I'm not going to second guess him, since I wasn't there. He obviously did things right (IMO) as he had about the most successful outcome that could be expected!
Maybe he could have waited a bit longer, but I would NOT wait until my mains are on the ground. Afterall, it does take a bit for the engines to quit turning, and it did give him the opportunity to reposition the props for minimal damage.

As an added note, C310's have something of a history regarding their landing gear. They are very long legged, and might even appear a bit spindly. The nose gears are especially susceptible to various issues. They sit MUCH higher off the ground than any other twin it's size. When flying a Seminole at All ATP's a few years ago, the IP kept asking me why I flared so high. Later when he delivered me to my 310, he immediately understood why. He had never been up close to a 310 before. It is easily twice the height of the Seminole(or even more)

And almost every 310 owner I have talked to has mentioned the same thing- that the insurance deductible is X (mine is $5K) for any incident, except if it is landing gear related, the deductible becomes X*2 ($10K).
 
Last edited:
Cessna has never used good quality materials for its piston products. It's obvious if you look at gear issues for Cessnas vs others. They did a better job for their twins, but it's still not ideal.

I wouldn't fly a piston brand C retract for this very reason...
 
sba55 said:
Cessna has never used good quality materials for its piston products. It's obvious if you look at gear issues for Cessnas vs others. They did a better job for their twins, but it's still not ideal.

I wouldn't fly a piston brand C retract for this very reason...
Click to expand...

After a few thousand hours in various 300/400 Series Cessna's I never had an issue with the landing gear. And I attribute this to quality maintenance.

The MM has a detailed inspection and rigging of the gear system. As long as this is followed at every inspection interval the gear is extremely reliable.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
After a few thousand hours in various 300/400 Series Cessna's I never had an issue with the landing gear. And I attribute this to quality maintenance.

The MM has a detailed inspection and rigging of the gear system. As long as this is followed at every inspection interval the gear is extremely reliable.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt that the landing gear is realizable if it is inspected often enough. Doesn't change the fact that it needs to be inspected and fixed far more often than others and that brand C has a much higher gear failure rate, especially for singles. Cheap components will do that....

-Felix
 
sba55 said:
I don't doubt that the landing gear is realizable if it is inspected often enough. Doesn't change the fact that it needs to be inspected and fixed far more often than others and that brand C has a much higher gear failure rate, especially for singles. Cheap components will do that....

-Felix
Click to expand...

Well, I have to disagree with you. Beechcraft have landing gear inspection on the same intervals, and just like the Cessna's if they aren't maintained they too will fail. As far as the higher failure rate of Cessna landing gear versus other manufacturers what data are you using to back this statement up?

Also, exactly which components in the Cessna landing gear are "cheap" as you put it?
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Well, I have to disagree with you. Beechcraft have landing gear inspection on the same intervals, and just like the Cessna's if they aren't maintained they too will fail. As far as the higher failure rate of Cessna landing gear versus other manufacturers what data are you using to back this statement up?

Also, exactly which components in the Cessna landing gear are "cheap" as you put it?
Click to expand...
I'm glad it's the same or similar interval because that allows for direct comparison. Of course equipment will fail if not properly inspected, but there's equipment that's easy to inspect and doesn't fail as often and equipment that's difficult to inspect and fails rather often. Sadly, retract Cessna twins generally fall into the latter category (this was a very common failure mode for Cessna tip tank twins if I understand correctly).

Data: http://www.thomaspturner.net/LGRM ongoing.htm

Brand C doesn't do well compared to the others. Let's not even talk about SE piston Cessnas, which just don't give you as much redundancy as Beech should the gear extension fail.

-Felix
 
sba55 said:
I'm glad it's the same or similar interval because that allows for direct comparison. Of course equipment will fail if not properly inspected, but there's equipment that's easy to inspect and doesn't fail as often and equipment that's difficult to inspect and fails rather often. Sadly, retract Cessna twins generally fall into the latter category (this was a very common failure mode for Cessna tip tank twins if I understand correctly).

Data: http://www.thomaspturner.net/LGRM ongoing.htm

Brand C doesn't do well compared to the others. Let's not even talk about SE piston Cessnas, which just don't give you as much redundancy as Beech should the gear extension fail.

-Felix
Click to expand...

Well, you certainly don't understand landing gear systems on various airplanes. I've had the opportunity to work on Piper, Beech, Cessna and a few other manufacturer's airplane landing gear systems. The Beech systems have weak points as well as the Cessna's. It all comes down to proper maintenance.

The major problem in GA are the cheap owners who skimp on maintenance because they have a plane they really can't afford in the first place. Tell the owner of a Beech or Cessna the cost and time to do a proper LG rig and they immediately start screaming. Then they find a mechanic that will do a "pencil annual" thinking they have saved a bundle.

The company I flew for back in the 80's had 12 Cessna 400 series and 3 300 series ( 402, 404, 421, 414 and 303 and 310's) and never once did we have landing gear issues. And most of these planes flew in excess of 100 hours per month.
 
sba55 said:
Fair enough. And you clearly don't understand that it's about relative failure rates. Let's leave it at that :)
Click to expand...

Sure I do, but the data you provided is skewed. Spend the time to go get an A&P license with an IA rating and actually work on these machines and perhaps you'll see what actually goes on. :smilewinkgrin:
 
I can't say much about the multi's but the Cutlass 172RG has a long history of power pack problems. The 182RG does not.

One could blame it on the cycle times for the Cutlass used as a trainer but I have my doubts.
 
But Kenny- the gutless Cutlass had a serious AD on those hydro packs! I helped replace them in the 172RG's we had as trainers at our school. Some of them even had to sit for a year or more, waiting for parts to come available.

If I remember correctly, the AD had to do with cracks in the housing, but related to the metal /casting... not number the of cycles.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top