Undercarriage Emergency - Land with gear up or down?

[BOK_]

A mate and I have been discussing undercarriage problems and procedures etc etc. One scenario that we discussed and can argue equally either way is the situation where 2 wheels have come down but a third remains retracted in the up position.

For example - if you had the situation where the nose wheel came down and the left main came down but the right main didn't and you went through all your checks etc etc and were now forced with no other option then what would you do:

1.) Land with all wheels up?

or

2.) Land with nose and 1 main wheel down?


Arguements for landing all wheels up is prevention of possible cartwheeling on runway with partial gear down.

Arguements for landing with 1 main down is that its possible to get some directional control and thus save one engine.

We operate Piper Chieftain aircraft - we can't find anything in the POH which states what course of action is the best to take so if any of you out there have some good advice then be great to hear from you.

:ok:

[tail wheel]

".....and thus save one engine."

Why worry about one engine? It is not yours! :confused:

The insurance company bought the aircraft a nanosecond before touch down! :ok:

[Torres]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v315/Woomera/picture080.jpg

Perfect landing! :}

[D-J]

on an interesting side note, we had an engine failure in flight which resulted in the engine & prop being as good as scrap the insurance company wouldn't cover this ( no suprises ) but 'if' for some reason the landing gear 'failed' to extend they would have at least covered the prop & a bulk strip................ :oh:

[ravan]

Tail Wheel & Torres posts ...... says it all really:E

[OpsNormal]

Remember that book that everyone seems so keen to disregard? Oh yeah, it's called the AFM. Diverge too far from that in your drills and actions should your scenario eventuate and you might find afterwards that the moment you did that then ownership of the aircraft just changed hands from the insurance company to yourself and you'll be quite possibly liable for some of the repair bill, an issue made clear to me with an incident a few years ago.

That is unless of course there is no clear guidance outlined in the AFM for such a scenario. Then you're on your own.

[bushy]

Pilots and passengers usually survive a wheels up landing, often with no injuries. And the aircraft nearly always flies again.
It's only money.

[Mark1234]

Based on all of 30 seconds consideration I think it'd depend upon the runway:

On a tarmac runway I'd go 2 legged, on a softer (grass / dirt) surface the belly.
If it was the nosewheel missing, I think I'd take 2 wheels either way, but could be convinced otherwise!

And OpsNormal, the OP made quite clear the POH had already been consulted to no avail..

[Stationair8]

Depends whether it's a pneumatic, hydraulic or electro-mechanical undercarriage and in which order the the wheels retract or extend.

You can finish up with the nose wheel stuck down and the mains still retracted, if something in the undercarriage fails like a leg brace you can finish up with a the main wheels locked down and the nose stuck up or in swinging in the breeze, in a PA-31 a hydraulic leak in the sytsem and nothing will come down.

Lots of combination are possible, but in the end the only known quantity is that you will have to land the sucker.

[Sunfish]

Belly landing on tarmac or grass (preferably Tarmac) if both mains are not showing down and locked.

Directional control and possible cart wheeling is the issue.

Watched a textbook one (from the ground)

[b_sta]

Yep, cartwheeling is what I'd be afraid of too. Better to just slide it along on its belly, at least you know it won't flip over that way.

[bushy]

For information, in a PA31 the standpipe for the emergency hand pump holds enough fluid to pump the gear down once, and if you have a hydraulic leak you still retain the fluid in the standpipe. I have done it for real with a hydraulic leak after a seal let go.
In many years of flying PA31's i only remember two gear problems. The other one was when the gear had not been lubricated properly and I only got two greens. After a number of circuiits and some naughty words I finally recycled it again and got three greens. I learned that day that you can actually see the left mainwheel from the back seat. (I had a radio LAME on board)
Microswitches are finicky things that often tell lies, but gear trouble is almost always caused by people. Either the pilot forgot something (I nearly did a couple of times) or the LAMES did.

[CharlieLimaX-Ray]

Not quiet true Bushy, they have been known to lose all the hydraulic fluid through a pipe failing and finish up with the wheels stuck up.

A PA-31/350 Air Ambulance did a wheels up about 22 years ago.

[OpsNormal]

Mark 1234, I have just re-read the original post and understand your point about the information being gleaned form a POH. You understand there is a difference between an AFM and a POH? From memory there are 2 or 3 different AFM/Report #'s for the PA31-350 with many differing procedures between the three.

I would consult your Chief Pilot and take his/her advice on this one in the absence of any firm manufacturers data. In the that instance (of no manufacturers data or checklist) for a lack of either mainwheel I personally would be bellying the aircraft for the plain simple reason is that the aircraft wouldn't be losing directional control on its belly as early as on two wheels only and any resultant runway excursion would be at a much slower forward speed and - more importanty - more survivable.

Mark, having been a Chief Pilot years ago and had enough exposure to malfunctioning PA31 powerpacks in some company aircraft (and the headaches that went with it) I feel I have had enough exposure to the issue thanks. Trying to "save" an engine and prop at the expense of your own (and your passengers) safety is a load of cobblers as the inurance company has just taken ownership of the aircraft the moment something goes "bang". Your job from therein is to ensure the best survivable outcome.

Keep that open mind.:ok:

Have a good one.

OpsN.;)

[Torres]

The only frustrations suffered by the Chieftain pilot above, was that he ended up two foot off the centerline and the Firies got foam on his flight bag.

On finals the flight was replanned from RPT to a delivery flight to the new insurance company owners. He recons it was a perfect landing, if a couple of feet lower than normal.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v315/Woomera/picture082.jpg

And no, he didn't forget anything. One main leg wouldn't lock down.

I can't think of any alternate, rational operational decision that pilot could have made.

Why would any thought of saving an engine, a prop, or minimising hull damage even enter a pilot's mind when his/her sole consideration is the safety of those on board?

[morno]

Ops,
Problems, what problems? :E

Every Chieftain deserves a belly landing. Hopefully done enough times it'll rid the world of them, ;).

I may have only done 300 or so hours in them, but they just never went anywhere near as good as a Baron or a C402. Nor did they fly as well as a Baron or a C402 either.

morno

[Peter Fanelli]

I may have only done 300 or so hours in them, but they just never went anywhere near as good as a Baron or a C402. Nor did they fly as well as a Baron or a C402 either.

What a dumb statement.

At least when you put nine passengers in a Chieftain they don't have to be sexually compatible with the person in the seat in front of them like they do in a 402.

Maybe a Chieftain is not as much fun to fly as a Baron but neither will that 777 you're probably aiming for be.

[morno]

Knew I'd get some Chieftain lover howling me down.

And Peter, trust me, I couldn't think of anything more boring than sitting in the front of a 777, 747, 767, 737, A330, A380, A320 or anything that resembles a likeness to any of those.

Give me a King Air or PC-12 anyday over any of the above, :ok:.

Ohh and the King Air handles just as nicely as the Baron as well.

To answer the question put forward by BOK though, I'd rather do a complete wheels up than to try and maintain control on only 2 out of 3 wheels.

morno

[Tee Emm]

I would consult your Chief Pilot and take his/her advice on this one in the absence of any firm manufacturers data

Be careful when consulting any pilot on operational matters such as the current subject on undercarriage unserviceabilities. That includes management pilots. They are not the font of all knowledge although occasionally some think they are. If you cannot locate the info you want from the aircraft manuals, try contacting the manufacturer. In any case you would be wise to educate yourself before the event by reading relevant accident or incident reports and talking to others. Seek opinions by all means but it is facts you are after.

[bushy]

CLX
It is perfectly true. get yourself a Chieftain manual and check it.
And I did bring a chieftain home with hydraulic fluid all over the airframe, and pump the gear down sucessfully after it failed to operate normally.
And Morno--the 402 is a poor copy of a chieftain and performs about the same. But they are for carrying midgets.
I agree the King Air is a great aeroplane to fly, as long as you don't have to pay the bills.

[CharlieLimaX-Ray]

Airlines of Tasmania VH-NPC, wheels up after a complete hydraulic failure.

Ausair VH-OZ?, wheels after the hydraulic fluid pumped overboard.

In the case of NPC, hydraulic lines had been changed as part of the CofA, then failed after a few hours of service, the result being one PA-31/350 parked on its belly.

[MyNameIsIs]

GFS C90 Kingair about 2 years ago at YMMB.

Nosewheel wouldn't lock down, landed on the two mains. Stayed straight down the runway.

Good video from the CH9 chopper.


Havn't had to do one myself (thankfully).
What would you do if the wheel can be seen to be down though but not getting a locked indication, and the thing isn't flapping in the airflow? Would suck to belly it because of a microswitch!

[bushy]

CLX
Obviously a major line breakeage or other huge leak may prevent the emergency pump from pumping the gear down with the small ammount of fluid it has left. But you will find that that safety feature is there, and I know it did work when mine blew a seal.
Go and find out.

[Tinstaafl]

My decision would be based what combination of wheels are left.

If both mains but no nosewheel then I'd choose gear down on a nice long, wide & sealed runway.

If missing a mainwheel then I'd choose wheels up. On the same nice long, wide & sealed runway. A consideration with Navajo is that even with flaps up, a missing main gear can cause the outer rear corner of the flap to contact the ground applying pressure to the rear spar which can damage it and the upper & lower wing skins. Other points of contact and damage include the wingtip, belly skin just aft of the door and tailplane tip. Belly antennas in unlucky locations too, of course.

How do know? I've seen it. And it required a new wing as the most cost effective way to repair due to the labour required to de-rivet most of the wing to replace the rear spar & skins.

[Peter Fanelli]

the result being one PA-31/350 parked on its belly.


Allow me to be pedantic, it's PA-31-350.