Emergency landing Van Nuys

[astir 8]

(Wednesday) A video clip is on the BBC News website showing a twin Cessna landing with defective nosewheel.

Looks like an excellent bit of flying by the pilot - both engines stopped & tail held down for the maximum possible time. Jack it up, fix the nosewheel and fly it!:ok:


BBC NEWS | News Front Page (http://news.bbc.co.uk/)

[Dop]

It's a nice video clip and a perfect emergency landing but I would have thought that it's hardly international front page news material, more a filler story of local interest!

[Fright Level]

hardly international front page news material

Not normally but it "fits" with the current headline about Bangkok so the BBC help reinforce the "aviating is dangerous stuff" message.

[vanHorck]

It s the fact that it was filmed so well that makes it news.

Good training for pilots. Shut the engines down at 100ft and land at normal speed, then trim back and back and hold off the nose

Minimal damage.


Well done!

[Fright Level]

I expect VNY has a permanent camera running in the tower for all the exotica they have flying in and out of there.

[HeliCraig]

Does anybody know if the video is available on YouTube too?
Edit: (Is this: YouTube - Plane Makes Emergency Landing At Van Nuys Airport (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=uMQgc7Wg3io) the same video?)

Our internet at work goes out through the USA and so sometimes the BBC video doesn't work!

[Fright Level]

Yes, same incident except the You Tube video is much longer at beginning & end.

[eyeinthesky]

Roger 10-4:

I suspect he was turning the prop to get it as horizontal as possible to prevent it getting bent when the nose dropped on deceleration. Then there's only the skin damage to repair and not new prop as well.

Well done to them...

[astir 8]

Both props seem to contact the ground and move slightly as the nose pitches down. Anyone know at what point a prop-strike engine stripdown becomes mandatory? Obviously neither were under power (or even turning)

[B2N2]

The answer to that is not that easy.
Did a little Google search.
It looks like a 310Q to me which probably has the CONTINENTAL 260 HP - IO-470-VO engines.
Here's what a search brought up:
Welcome to Teledyne Continental Motors (http://tcmlink.com/fiddefault.aspx?cgroup=MATTITUCK&cpagename=SS)

Engine Sudden Stoppage

What is a prop strike? Is it a sudden engine stoppage regardless of the cause? Is it an occasion when a prop blade strikes a foreign object and the engine continues to run? Is it hitting a rock or other loose object with a prop blade while operating on a runway or taxiway? Is it when something or someone impacts a prop blade when the engine isn't running?

The only pertinent F.A.A. definition that I have been able to find is in Advisory Circular 43.13-1A. It defines a sudden engine stoppage as; stopping an engine in one revolution or less for any reason, be it from propeller impact or from an engine failure of some sort. Both major engine manufacturer's have service literature that explains the desired course of action after accidental propeller damage and, in the case of Teledyne Continental, defines what their interpretation of a propeller strike is.

T.C.M.'s Service Bulletin 96-11, in a nutshell, says that if a propeller must be removed from the aircraft to be repaired following a propeller blade impact of any sort or if the engine physically lost R.P.M.'s from the incident, then the engine has experienced a propeller strike and it should be removed from service and completely disassembled and thoroughly inspected for damage from the incident.

Textron Lycoming, in their Service Bulletin 533, takes the approach that the safest procedure is to take the engine apart for inspection following any incident involving propeller blade damage. However, they have the caveat that the inspecting mechanic may override that position and return the engine to service without disassembly and inspection if he feels that it is the prudent and responsible thing to do.

Textron Lycoming has also published Service Bulletin 475B which requires, in the event that the engine has experienced a propeller strike, inspection and possible rework of the accessory gear train as well as the rear of the engine's crankshaft. Compliance with this service bulletin is mandatory in the eyes of the F.A.A. by A.D. note 91-14-22, if and only if, the engine has experienced a sudden engine stoppage not a propeller strike. It should be noted that to comply with A.D. note 91-14-22, the engine does not need to be completely disassembled and that access to the accessory gear train can be accomplished, in most cases, with the engine still installed in the aircraft.

What this all boils down to is that in the case of any accidental damage to a propeller installed on a aircraft operating under Part 91 of the F.A.R.'s, it is up to the inspecting technician to determine if the engine should continue in service without total disassembly and inspection. A Textron Lycoming engine, that is being operated on a Part 91 aircraft, that had a sudden engine stoppage, not a propeller strike, must comply with A.D. note 91-14-22 and Service Bulletin 475B at a minimum.

Teledyne Continental powered aircraft operating under Part 135 of the F.A.R.'s, that have to comply with all manufacturers service bulletins, would have to comply with Service Bulletin 96-11 requiring total disassembly and inspection after any incident that required removal of the propeller for repairs or if the engine physically lost R.P.M.'s during the incident. An aircraft, operating under the same regulations, that is powered by a Textron Lycoming engine, would have to comply with Service Bulletin 475B after a propeller strike of any kind and would also have to comply with A.D.note 91-14-22 if the propeller strike was deemed a sudden engine stoppage. On these Textron Lycoming powered aircraft, it is the responsibility of the inspecting technician to determine if the engine should be removed from service for disassembly and inspection.

These are the legal requirements as I see them. There may be other additional requirements mandated by insurance policies or engine manufacturer's and or overhauler's warranties. Either may require additional inspection requirements but neither may negate the inspections required by the F.A.R.'s. Never allow an insurance adjuster to dictate the inspection requirements after an incident. Always rely on the inspecting technician, applicable service data and the F.A.R.'s to dictate how thorough an inspection is necessary to continue the engine in service.

After the extent of the inspection has been determined, it is important, as with any major repairs that are accomplished on your aircraft, to find out exactly what is included in the estimate to repair your engine following a prop strike. Are the minimum legal requirements being met? Is the engine being completely disassembled and inspected? What other services or inspections are being performed at the same time as the inspection? If the engine is being disassembled does the estimate include testing after reassembly? Are any of the engine's accessories inspected and if so to what extent? Are there any hidden costs? After finding out the answer to these questions, it's time to discuss with your insurance company what they will pay for and what they won't, before it's a big surprise after the inspection has been completed. Many insurance companies will not pay for any inspection requirements unless damage from the incident is found during that inspection. Others will pay for all costs for the inspection and for any parts needed due to the incident. Still others will only pay for the labor to do the job and will not pay for any parts.

Finding out what needs to be done and whether that agrees with what you feel should be done, who's going to do it and who is going to pay for it, should help make the experience of a prop strike as painless as possible.

by Mahlon Russell

It looks really nice to stop the engines and feather the props, bump the starter till the blades are (almost) horizontal but it may not always make financial difference at the end by the looks of it.

[what next]

Hello!

It looks really nice to stop the engines and feather the props, bump the starter till the blades are (almost) horizontal but it may not always make financial difference at the end by the looks of it.

On the contrary! This pilot was very skilled, but also very, very lucky. Has he ever performed a gliding approach in a C310? I doubt it. So he does an untrained, unrehearsed approach after having willingly removed any chance of going around from it - and instead of concentrating on his landing, he fiddles with his starter buttons... Any commercial operator would terminate his contract immediately for this action alone. And where does the aeroplane operators manual, or the landing-gear emergency checklist, or the training manual of his flight training organsisation call for shutting down the engines in case of suspected or imminent nose-wheel collapse? In my country he would most probably be prosecuted for endangering the safety of the aircraft and its occupants.

I've been an instrucor for 15 years now. And one thing I always teach (after haven been taught the same myself) is that the least of your concerns in any emergency must be money. Especially other people's money, in this case money of his insurance company. Who cares if they have to pay for two new props and the shockloading inspection of the engines? Twenty or thirty thousand Dollars, "peanuts" in their speech, that's what you pay your premium for, anyway.

Had he gotten this landing wrong, either by under- or overshooting (more probable, because people tend to "play it safe" when gliding and therefore come in high), they may have faced claims of twenty or thirty million Dollars for the injuries/permanent damage/death sustained by his student or passenger. (In my country, they would have claimed back that money from him afterwards!) A very lucky man indeed.

I've had an bocked nosegear in a Seminole two years ago. With two students on board. The very, very, very last thing to do would have been to stop the engines. Not once did this idea cross my mind. We were lucky because our nosegear held, and the student learned a lot from it and was happy, because I let him handle the emergency alone.

Greetings, Max

[SNS3Guppy]

Max, above, is absolutely correct.

One already has an emergency...a gear emergency. One is prepared to deal with that. One need not compound the problem by shutting down BOTH engines in flight...now there's an unusual configuration and change coupled with different flight charactaristics, different glide characteristics, different flare characteristics, an unstabilized approach if the shutdown is done below 1,000', loss of electrics, etc.

[BackPacker]

Had he gotten this landing wrong, either by under- or overshooting (more probable, because people tend to "play it safe" when gliding and therefore come in high),

When I saw the video first time, this was exactly what I noticed. He came in very, very steep, tried to flare but had apparently too much vertical speed vs. not enough horizontal speed so the flare did not really work. So the landing on the main wheels was very firm. He then pulled the nose up too far, possibly resulting in a tailstrike - hard to see on the video. The aircraft then pitched forward and put more load on the nosegear than what would have happened in a normal landing. And all this happened *before* the displaced threshold. It's not like he was short of runway. So he must have misjudged something somehow.

If he would have made a normal landing would the nosegear have held, possibly? We will probably never know.

Personally, when I would have a gear problem, I would find a nice long runway, approach it with a normal or even slightly high approach speed at a normal angle, flare as long as I can, and then make the flattest and softest landing I can manage. And if I were to shut down my engine(s), I would probably do it while rolling out on the main wheels with the nose held slightly high.

Nevertheless, any emergency landing you can walk away from is a good one.

[SkyHawk-N]

The pilot may have prevented some engine shock load, although the props still did strike the runway, but he also gave the tail area a few good bashes. It would be interesting to see the final work order.

[vanHorck]

I disagree. Wrote my story on a similar thread. My nose wheel held too, but i did shut the engines just before the flare with a 2 pilot operation and agreed procedure.

We did not have the time to use the starter for the prop turning, nor did we have time for that.

Who s too say if they did at van Nuys? It could have been the force of the wind? Our props windmilled till we touched down.

Anyone with good sense would land at a large airport with an unsafe gear, both because of the emergency services as well as the long runway.

Providing you shut down just before the flare there is zero risk on a large runway. In fact at van Nuys he landed pretty well.

I found the flare without power only slightly different from a normal flare which was easily corrected with the control column.

Also switching off the engines, electrics and fuel cocks in my view reduced the risks of fire.

Anyway, just my opinion.

[Pilot DAR]

It is possible that this particular 310 was a private aircraft, not opertating in accordance with "procedures", other than those specified in the flight manual, and learned by the pilot during training, and perhaps his/her own practice and rehersal for such an event (not unknown in 310's). I certainly practiced back when I flew 310's and 340's.

So, extending to this pilot the benefit of the doubt, that operating the starter(s) during the flare did not actually violate a written procedure applicable to the operation of that particular aircraft, Good job!

If the pilot felt that his/her managament of the workload was such that one more task (operating starters) could be safely managed, I can hardly see how anyone here has grounds to differ. Just because some posters here are unable or unwilling to entertain an extra task while flying a particular phase, does not make that task unsafe or unwise for that reason only.

Why on earth would anyone seek to criticize skillful, and obvioulsy successful piloting, which minimised damage to the aircraft, and helped to keep ALL of our insurance premiums just a tiny bit lower! If all pilots flew with this attention to care, our industry would be better, and the naysaysers here would really have to hunt hard for someone to criticise!

There are many examples of pilots who went the extra distance, and did a better that expected job. Let's just give them a harty "at a boy", and save the criticizm for those pilots who behaved recklessly, caused unwarranted damage and cost, and generally cast a poor image on flying.

Having myself orbited a 310 for nearly three hours trying to get the gear down, I can tell you that there can be lot's of time to plan and prepare for an appropriate landing. Perhaps this pilot had a similar opportunity, and the skillful landing, including the elements which seem to have offended some here, came as a result of planning, preparedness, and good execution.

As for gliding an aircraft to a landing, I certainly hope that is an element of type training, as any aircraft can have to land without fuel. I certainly practised them in the 310. Nothing wrong with a well planned gliding landing, I know glider pilots who do them regularly!

My vote is for this pilot, not against...

Pilot DAR

[SkyHawk-N]

Pilot DAR said ...

and helped to keep ALL of our insurance premiums just a tiny bit lower!

Do you actually believe that? If so you have obviously never worked for insurance companies! ;)

[Pilot DAR]

Yeah, you're right. I don't really believe that, but I can cling to a hope can't I?