A comment on ensuring landing gear down if forced landing a retractable gear aircraft

[Tee Emm]

Issue No. 18 of ATSB Aviation Short Investigation Bulletin contains a report on the apparent double engine failure in cruise of a PA-39 Twin Commanche VH-RMA.
The following excerpt makes interesting reading:

Concerned about the aircraft’s proximity to the critical V
mca3 airspeed (70 kt), the pilot maintained about 90 kt, while searching for a suitable landing site. He commenced an approach and broadcast the aircraft’s position and his intentions on the Melbourne Centre frequency. On final approach, he turned off the fuel pumps. During the round-out, he decided to extend the landing gear, as the surface looked more suitable than first thought. He pulled back on the control column to gain height and selected the landing gear down. The aircraft stall warning briefly sounded, so the pilot lowered the aircraft nose. Moments later, the propellers contacted the ground and the aircraft skidded to a halt.
............................................................ ...............................

In the old days of predominately tail-wheel aircraft, it was considered safer to land wheels up in a forced landing to prevent the aircraft from nosing over on touch-down. This was vital in the cases of fighter aircraft such as the Spitfire, Hurricane and Hawker Typhoons and Tempests -all of which were retractable main landing gear types with tail wheels.

When the North American Sabre jet fighter was introduced into the United States Air Force it had a tricycle landing gear with a nosewheel. Initially pilots would continue with the then policy of landing with the wheels retracted on a forced landing. The higher landing speed associated with jet types often resulted in severe back injury to the pilot in a forced landing gear up as there was no energy transfer to the landing gear on impact and the force of impact often caused spinal injuries.

Because of this danger, it became standard procedure to land wheels down in event of a forced landing in a tricycle landing gear type. Impact forces through the spine were reduced because the landing gear absorbed most of the energy; especially if a high rate of descent was occurring at the flare. Also it may be possible to reduce the landing run by use of the wheel brakes if they are available. Of course this did not apply to ditching, where wheels up applied to all types.

It took many years for the civilian training community to accept the military recommendation to lower the landing gear in a forced landing in a tricycle landing gear aircraft. Even now it is doubtful if the word has been passed down to flying school instructors and I wonder if this was the reason for the pilot of the afore-mentioned Twin Commanche to plan for a gear up belly landing in his aircraft after both engines played up and a forced landing became necessary.

The ATSB report indicated he tried to lower the landing gear just before he flared when he saw the field was suitable for a gear down landing. The point could have been made in the ATSB report that experience has shown a wheels down forced landing has its advantages over a belly landing, almost regardless of the surface (apart from ditching). Even with a rocky surface, it would almost certainly be safer wheels down because of the energy transfer to the wheels rather than the bottom of the fuselage and directly to the pilot's seat and spine.

I wonder if this sort of airmanship consideration is actively taught at todays flying schools whether on single engine or twin engine retractable landing gear types?

[Wanderin_dave]

Tee Emm - Have you read the other short reports released today? Specifically this one: Investigation: AO-2013-023 - Engine failure involving a Cessna 182R, VH-OWZ, Kununurra Airport, WA, 22 January 2013 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2013/aair/ao-2013-023.aspx)

After extending the landing gear and selecting full flap, the main landing gear touched down in long grass and the aircraft decelerated rapidly. When the nose gear touched down, it dug into boggy ground and the aircraft flipped over, coming to rest inverted. The pilot and passenger received minor injuries and the aircraft sustained substantial damage.

I am a believer in gear up forced landings, unless absolutely sure of landing surface.

[Tankengine]

Protecting the occupants is paramount.
Except in a case where rolling over is very likely then protecting the spine by having the gear down is best.
In Gliders this should always be done, even on water landings ( to break the surface tension and reduce submarining as well as protecting against hitting the bottom in shallow water).:ok:

In the case mentioned the problem seems to have been the late change of plan.:ugh:

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

In the aircraft I fly (Bonanza, C210) if the engine fails my focus is on walking away from the forced landing. That being the case, its going in wheels up - no ifs, buts or maybes! I can think of NO good reason to do otherwise.

[Oktas8]

This sort of airmanship consideration is still discussed at flying schools, but there is no consensus.

Many general aviation pilots claim it is safer to land wheels-up on an unprepared surface. It seems many pilots think that an aircraft nosing-over scenario is a catastrophic scenario. I don't think it is, in most cases.

ForkTailed - why do you think you are safer landing on (for example) a rough surface wheels up than down? I guess you're more concerned with nose-over than with fuselage impact damage, but you haven't said.

Personally, I'm with the OP on this one. The landing gear is designed to absorb a lot of kinetic energy, so I'm going to put it down. If the aircraft does nose over, it's not a disaster provided my seatbelt is fastened firmly (and fuel off, etc etc).

[Trent 972]

FTDK, you've obviously given the matter some serious thought.
I'd just like to know how you came up with that answer.

I'd have thought it reasonable if you were to take a look out the window and make a decision on the circumstances as they were at the time.
edit
Both Boeing and Airbus stress the importance of leaving the gear down to absorb impact forces in the event of likely ground contact in take-off/go around windshear events at the expense of additional climb performance with the gear retracted.
regards.

[Old Akro]

My thoughts would be that it is more about managing the deceleration rate rather than a concern about tipping over. On a wet boggy field or a really rocky one, gear down is more likely to lead to a sudden stop, whereas gear up will skip along the top for a gentler landing.

[Wanderin_dave]

I do think it's a type specific thing. Eg. In one of the aircraft I fly, Yak 52, the book says gear up. Short nose, long gear and nil structure above the pilots head means ending up on you lid is more likely and highly undesirable. Couple this with the gear still being exposed when retracted means I'm going in gear up unless I'm very certain of the surface.

I don't know the Twin Comanche, but at first glance gear down seems the choice to make. Short gear and long nose indicates that you're unlikely to end up blue side down.

[Old Akro]

You've got to love this comment from the ATSB in the C182R report:

An engine tear down was not performed and the reason for the engine failure could not be determined.

Doh!

[Brian Abraham]

A short selection of flight manuals

A36 - gear down or up depending on terrain
Chieftain - nothing mentioned
Cessna 404 - gear down if field is smooth and hard, if terrain is rough or soft plan on a wheels up landing
T-28 - gear up for unprepared surface

Mate deadsticked an A36 with gear down in a wheat paddock and tore the nose wheel out. Damage would have been far less if he had bellied it in.

[Wally Mk2]

Personally who gives a rats about the damage caused gear up or down, yr life is far more important besides what's that saying........you no longer own the A/C in such instances the Ins Co does:-)
Do as the Flt Man says or make an informed decision (terrain etc) & stick to it.
I've got a few hrs in the old 'twin can', gear down every time (unless water landing) due low stance as those old birds where tuff as an old FC Holden:ok:

Same for the old Beech machines, gear down as they too are built like tanks:-)
C210? Diff story, they feel like they are made out of tissue paper & sticks:-)
And this if for you 'Jabba', don't fly SE planes (or low powered twins) & reduce the chances:E


Wmk2

[solowflyer]

Having had the opertinity to experience such event first hand it's gear down for me, took a hell of a lot of force out of the sudden stop.

[Howard Hughes]

Wheels up on water, no if's or but's! :ok:

As for the rest, RTFM! ;)

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

FTDK, you've obviously given the matter some serious thought.
I'd just like to know how you came up with that answer.

Been flying for almost 40 yrs - read lots of Crash Comics and ATSB reports - I always try to think these senarios through before having to execute.

Unless I am sure of the surface and length, its wheels up for me!

[Trent 972]

FTDK, appreciate the reply. :ok:
I also appreciate the qualification in your reply.
Your initial post indicated that it would be gear-up no matter what.
I was a little surprised.
My concern is for the newbies that read these forums and take away that a very experienced 'Bonza' pilot such as yourself, had such a hard and fast rule.

Your experience is what you have to rely on when it turns to sh!t.
regards

[Tankengine]

It depends an the aircraft.
In a glider ( and I have >30 " forced landings") then it is wheel down,
Even in water! - no ifs or buts!:E

Your spine is too fragile to trust the belly.:ugh:

[Capt Fathom]

Unless I am sure of the surface and length, its wheels up for me!

But Forkie, do you have any practical experience in this?

Does the Owners Manual provide any guidance?

Mate deadsticked an A36 with gear down in a wheat paddock and tore the nose wheel out. Damage would have been far less if he had bellied it in.

How do you know that Brian without trying both methods!

[john_tullamarine]

Numerous paddock retrieves in a long ago prior life towing gliders. Even with the extensive time spent checking out the proposed site from the air ... never did one just wing it in ... good way to kill yourself stone dead real quick .. the hidden rocks in the grass were always my fear once I'd got past the hidden power and phone lines.

The certification standards for singles .. and light twins (and that's the more likely scenario for a forced landing, I suggest) envisage a maximum stall speed of 61 kts .. see, for instance, FAR 23.49(c) (http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&SID=818a2761f1f86f31737c43435ac67c8b&rgn=div8&view=text&node=14:1.0.1.3.10.2.60.8&idno=14). Why 61 kts may well you ask ? Originally this was 70 mph in the olden days. Where did that come from ? Finger in the wind WAG. According to an old chap who was an instructor on a course I sat 20 odd years ago .. and who, as a young chap, himself, had been an office boy engineer in the very early days of the original US regulatory body .. a lot of rules had to be made up simply because they were needed and there was no rule book to look up and get the information to formulate the rule.

Energy to get rid of once you are on the ground is related to speed squared and you need to get rid of this one way or another. Low speed touch down is your friend.

If you have a nice firm, smooth surface ... why wouldn't you land wheels down ?

If you have a rough surface with lots of hard things scattered around .. why wouldn't you land wheels down ? Putting aside the case where the aircraft hits a big, immovable object, the wheel assembly is going to crack and break during the impact .. reducing the loads which your body has to react in the cabin.

In between there is a range of variations, some of which might suggest a wheels up if there is negligible risk of personel injury. About the only case I can bring to mind might be an off runway landing onto a mown, extremely sodden, grass/dirt surface.

A couple of considerations to support landing wheels down ..

(a) motor vehicle Standards run at around 20 odd G for the impact requirements and emphasis collapsible structure and a survival volume via the cabin to get the occupants through most minor impacts without too much damage. Keep in mind that 30-35G is a reasonable guesstimate for a survivable impact without encroachment into the survival volume.

(b) when the aircraft dynamic seat standards come into vogue, FAA's CAMI did a bunch of sled tests using real world fuselage sections. End result was that the typical widebody with an underfloor baggage compartment full of stuff ... resulted in the occupants experiencing comparatively low decelerations. By comparison, a hard airframe with a high ROD during the impact sequence (otherwise known as a helicopter) occupant experienced VERY high loads .. so much so that a helicopter seat needs to have a long stroking mechanism to achieve the dynamic design Standards requirements.

For the above, read "spread the impact over a few metres to survive". The alternative of hitting a brick wall is not a successful life strategy.

What does this mean for an outfield landing unless you absolutely know that there exist NO obstacles littering the grass ? You really want to have some structural stuff available to bend and break instead of having that energy taken up by your body. Undercarriage is real beaut for doing this.

Of course, wheels up or wheels down some impacts will be unsurvivable. What you should be doing is loading the dice in your favour.

Me ? Hang the aircraft .. it's wheels down just about every time and fly the machine as far into the prang as is practicable with a view to delaying hitting anything hard until the speed is right down there in the low numbers.

[Creampuff]

Putting aside the case where the aircraft hits a big, immovable object, the wheel assembly is going to crack and break during the impact ..Big call there, JT.

Perhaps some landing gear systems are built to be quite strong e.g. to practise carrier landings, and may not break as conveniently as assumed.

[john_tullamarine]

It all comes back to stats and damned lies as well as peak acceleration loading on the body.

What you need is any means to have your body go from goa to whoa over a reasonably long distance. How you achieve that is a moot point and up to the boy or girl in the driver's seat at the time.

Reduce that distance and the deceleration loads go up. Experience too high a G and nasty things start to occur .. aorta rips out, stuff like that .. this assumes that your survival volume is not breached. If you get hard things coming into your survival space then you have the problem of significant direct trauma to the body.

I'd still prefer the chance of bending, breaking, and ripping off any structure that's not real close to my bits and pieces rather than taking my chances with a comparatively thin keel surface. So, as an almost invariable rule .. it's gear down for me.

[PLovett]

If the bleedin' donk has thrown in the towel then the whole shebang belongs to the insurance company. My concern at that point becomes me; if I get out ok then so will the pax. Every decision from the point of silence is governed by that one thought.

I have to admit that I spent a lot of hours in C210s' flying out of Alice Springs and many a long flight was spent going "what if it all goes silent?", "where would I go?", "wheels up or down?". As to the latter it would mostly have been wheels up; the ground may be as hard as bu##ery out there but the rocks would be the killer. The only possible exception would be if there was a half-way decent road and even then it would be touch or go decision.

JT, I understand where you are coming from but the collapse may not be gradual and there may be significant more damage caused to the fuselage in the event of, say one undercarriage leg been broken off, or worse snapped in half.

[john_tullamarine]

Of course, there are no guarantees and the Monday morning quarterbacking may not be kind.

However, the aims in the heat of the moment remain as per Crashes 101 -

(a) maintaining survival volume

(b) reducing peak decelerations

I have my views based on general vehicle engineering and aircraft seat testing background, you are entitled to yours and they are respected.

[Centaurus]

Of course, wheels up or wheels down some impacts will be unsurvivable. What you should be doing is loading the dice in your favour.

Me ? Hang the aircraft .. it's wheels down just about every time and fly the machine as far into the prang as is practicable with a view to delaying hitting anything hard until the speed is right down there in the low numbers

Agree wholeheartedly with JT's advice. The following advice from Boeing reflects the point that JT makes regarding energy absorption. Under the heading of Partial or Gear Up Landing the flight crew training manual states: "Land on all available gear. The landing gear absorbs the initial shock and delays touchdown of body parts"

Whether landing on a runway or an unprepared surface, the principle of energy absorption by the landing gear is the same.
Readers may recall from ten years ago, the Duchess that crashed at Camden following a simulated engine failure shortly after lift off. The student (10,000 hours) selected gear up and at 100 feet the instructor cut one mixture lever. With the prop windmilling because the instructor had not set zero thrust, the aircraft was unable to climb and after clipping a tree top, belly landed into rising ground. It went through a wire fence and both occupants were uninjured. The right wing then hit an iron girder which split the wing and fuel was ignited. The two pilots evacuated the aircraft but were caught by the fire. One pilot survived with severe burns while the other pilot died of burns.

if the landing gear had been down when the Duchess hit the rising ground, the wing may have been high enough off the surface to clear the obstruction. Of course, that is a what- if situation, but it seems to me there are more advantages to landing gear down than on its belly gear up.

I once saw the tragic results to a pilot who lost an engine in his trike and forced landed on rocky ground. Being a trike, the pilot's seat was like that of a deck chair only inches of the ground with the inevitable result the pilot received severe spinal injuries because of lack of energy absorbing space between seat and ground.

Going back to the original post, where the USAF had Sabre fighters that had landed wheels up and caused pilot spinal injuries. The lesson was soon learnt that energy absorption was vital to minimise spinal injuries and so the advice to land wheels down on unprepared surfaces was made standard forced landing procedure.
That information is as valid now as it was sixty years ago.:ok:

[Tankengine]

Aviation is full of myths.:hmm:
Jaba dislikes the one about ROP and "over square"'
I dislike how so any " know" the right way to force land when neither they or their instructors ( however long ago) have done one!;)

[machadotaughtme]

That Navajo chieftain MKK went in with gear down off airport at marree. Gear took the brunt of the fall. Not a bad effort considering a main ripped off as well.

[Trent 972]

If not on the bitumen, you might as well leave it up ...
Personal opinions are like @rseholes, everybody has one, but that opinion is really like an @sehole because it's full of sh!t.
I tried to think of a nice way to say it, but I couldn't. Sorry.

I know we are talking about 'Retractable Gear' aircraft here, but google the images of the VH-JGR crash (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2012/aair/ao-2012-148.aspx), (fixed gear) where the pilot barely survived the impact, and then try to tell me that gear didn't absorb a whole lot of the impact forces, which probably was the difference between life and death.

[Old Akro]

Trent

there are 2 weaknesses of your argument:

1. JGR did not hit the ground in a controlled glide. It reads more like a stall / spin impact.
2. I don't think the behaviour (on impact) of the Wittman style fixed undercarriage cessna can be used to model how the structure of a retractable undercarriage performs.

[Wanderin_dave]

Clearedtorenter - Thanks for pointing that out, I did read that 182R as 182RG. :ugh:

[Trent 972]

OA, controlled glide/stall spin, has not been bought up in this discussion till now.
I made the reference to JGR only to show how much energy the gear absorbed to bend like that before the hull impacted.
The discussion so far is whether to have the wheels out to absorb impact energy before the hull absorbs all the energy. The difference between a 172 fixed gear and a 182RG gear in that circumstance would be negligible.
I refer you back to my first post to FTDK when I indicated preconceived actions may not be as good as making the call as and when required.
CTR says 'gear-up' unless it is bitumen. My personal opinion is, that is bullsh!t of the first order.
CTR, I grew up on outback cattle stations flying 182 and 182RG's. Your "premadonna" label bothers me not.
JT has given a most enlightening discourse and I have to admit I agree with him.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Slight 'drift'.....

Re the JGR ATSB report, did anyone notice the following..
'The pilot was the only person on board and suffered severe injuries as a result of the accident and was airlifted to hospital.'

Followed by...
Highest injury level: Minor

And further on...
Damage to aircraft: Unknown

From the photos on google, I would have said 'aircraft destroyed'...

Que..??

[Brian Abraham]

A photo, they say, speaks a thousand words.

http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/p51variants/Home/NA-73X_2.jpg

The P-51 prototype following a landing in a freshly ploughed field as a result of an engine failure. The test pilot was stuck in the cockpit until rescuers were able to dig him out. Note the wheels, seemingly undamaged.

Perhaps there may have been a reason WWII crews force landed their P-51, P-47, Spitfires, Lancasters etc etc gear up. Both the P-51 and Spitfire manuals dictate gear up.

[Old Akro]

I made the reference to JGR only to show how much energy the gear absorbed to bend like that before the hull impacted.

The report says that JGR impacted 20 deg nose down & with a 60 deg bank. Its not the undercart that did the energy absorbing. It also says it had a high rate of descent with low forward airspeed. Sounds like a spin to me.

[Trent 972]

Its not the undercart that did the energy absorbing
OA you've nailed it.
The gear legs are bent up like that because they became frightened just prior to impact.
I continue to learn...

[Old Akro]

Yeah, but the gear bent after initial impact.

If it was a spin there would have been a lateral force on impact that undercat is not stressed for (due to the yaw). The damage to the gear is collateral damage after initial impact, not (as you suggest) part of the energy absorption of the impact. Get a model and set it on the table 20 deg nose down with 60 deg bank.

Where are the wings in the photo? That is what took the bulk of the impact. The wing strut has pulled out from the fueselage attach point. Who knows what collateral damage that caused to the monocoque structure adjacent to the undercart.

The angle of the engine is testament to the nose down attitude that almost certainly saw the engine contacting before the undercart. Moving a 100 kg plus lump of metal and bending / breaking the engine mount or firewall absorbs large lumps of energy.

Aeroplanes are frankly not very crashworthy structures. If you have any doubt, have a close look at how your seatbelts attach. Cars use a 7/16 inch grade 10 (from memory) bolt. Aircraft use something like a 1/4 inch AN bolt. AN bolts are about Grade 8 strength (a little stronger). This bolt typically attaches to CrMo sheet brackets that are often cherry riveted to a non-structural aluminium panel. If you hit the ground in an uncontrolled descent, you're in pretty serious trouble and the gear is not going to help, wherever it is.

Conversely, if you hit the ground in a controlled glide (eg forced landing), then the gear is going to help a lot and the debate about whether or not its tucked up in the belly is worthwhile. You hope / expect to walk away from these.

[Old Akro]

http://i1330.photobucket.com/albums/w566/Doug_Gould/vhjgr_zps6e1cc015.jpg

This photo from the Brisbane Times is more informative than the ATSB one. Its hit on LH wing & nose.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

But Forkie, do you have any practical experience in this?

Yes Capt, all my engine failures have been wheels up - and I am still here! :E

[kellykelpie]

Yes Capt, all my engine failures have been wheels up - and I am still here!

Running too lean FTDK?

[Jabawocky]

Kelly

You need to make yourself known to me by PM ;)

I suspect I can narrow you down to a list of names :}

Tankengine
Aviation is full of myths.
Jaba dislikes the one about ROP and "over square"'
I dislike how so any " know" the right way to force land when neither they or their instructors ( however long ago) have done one!

Ahhh yes but the myths are easily busted with data. :ok:

Same applies here

[john_tullamarine]

This thread is rather valuable for the to and fro commentary.

If I may add some additional thoughts ..

(a) If not, well, its not going to worry the pilot.

If the pilot/others are dead, then the crash was unsurvivable for whatever reasons. Sad for those left behind but, as you observe, not a problem thereafter for the pilot.

If the pilot/others experience no injuries (for instance, my only prang, years ago in a Bocian .. also my first glider ride ... left the unit in tatters and small bits of structure after we collected a fence post during an outlanding out at Penrith .. that was another story ... but, after both of us shook the remains from around us, we found ourselves without a scratch, bruise or other injury ... very embarrassing back at RIC that night, though as the glider had only just come out of overhaul) ... then, no problems.

HOWEVER, if the occupants suffer significant but non-lethal injuries, it is a whole different ball game. Every bit of advantage the pilot can build in to the outcome may just keep you out of a wheelchair or worse.

(b) Going A over T is a real risk if you don't have a great knowledge of the surface in question

Absolutely valid consideration. But only one aspect of the risk decision process. The aim ought not only to be avoiding ending up on your back but minimising the overall risk of injury .. horses for courses with the Type and circumstances on the day.

(c) Both the P-51 and Spitfire manuals dictate gear up.

As with all matters one would be factoring in the OEM's guidance.

A superstructure cockpit without surrounding crushable structure to help out in the case of a rollover together with a reasonable lower keel structure would be a good reason to favour gear up. Again, horses for courses. (Could be a good after dinner topic for discussion, Brian ?)

(d) Yeah, but the gear bent after initial impact.

The initial sequence doesn't matter all that much. The start of the prang is whatever the pilot makes of the final approach and touchdown. From there on, the basics of Crashes 101 are all that is important. Whether it's the wheels which bend and break .. or the wings ... or anything other than the occupants ... is good. Same philosophy applies with a paddock full of trees ... hit them with the wings, not the nose ...

(e) Aeroplanes are frankly not very crashworthy structures

As with most things ... it depends on what you might be expecting ...

The basic Certification strategy is that aircraft survivability is to do with an off-airport landing on a smooth, firm and generally suitable surface to permit a relatively gentle deceleration to a stop. If you run into something substantial, all bets are off.

Indeed, the most graphic picture I can recall is of the cliff face into which a B1B impacted at low level high speed flight conditions ... a black smudge and nothing much else that I can recall distinguishing.

As a consequence of the basic requirements, the early design standards envisaged maximum decelerations in the order of 6G. This was later upped to 9G. Later still, when the use of dynamic sled tests in the motor vehicle industry demonstrated that the very much higher peak loadings could be tolerated without horrendous design and manufacturing cost, the aircraft Standards adopted the motor vehicle Standards albeit with a few odds and ends added on.

Your motor car looks to full on impacts and the present Standards should serve you well up to, say, 50 to 60 kph. The aircraft can't quite aim for that sort of impact but, with the present dynamic standard seats, you are served well in most reasonable off airport prangs ... PROVIDING that you don't hit big and/or hard things.

Crashes 101 still reigns supreme.

(f) This bolt typically attaches to CrMo sheet brackets that are often cherry riveted to a non-structural aluminium panel.

Designs may vary but, if they are well thought out, things are a lot better than you might infer from the above comment.

I recall a cargo MU2 prang many years ago at Bargo or somewhere nearby. The cargo restraint system was of my approved design.

Barry S, the lead investigator, rang me at home to let me know that the aircraft had disintegrated around my cargo restraint provisions .. a bit of exaggeration on his part, no doubt, but the point remains, it is not very difficult to engineer an effective and progressively deforming restraint anchorage in an aircraft structure ...

Crashes 101 still remains supreme.

Only the detail on the day varies ...

[Wally Mk2]

"JT" you add valuable reading here:ok:

At the end of the day it's one of three things that will end a humans life as far as A/C accidents are concerned, well any machine mankind happens to be in during a crash sequence. One is blunt force trauma, usually the most prolific in an accident sequence. Secondly lack of o2 to the brain associated with fire within the cabin cell. Third is & this can be associated with the first I mentioned here & that's sudden deceleration, such high forces as has been mentioned here already can & usually dislodges the main organs, mainly the heart & spleen, both will take you out pretty quick due bleeding out.
All not very pleasant I know but if your faced with the unthinkable possible high impact forces then all one can do is lesson the impact by way of letting the airframe absorb as much as possible.
Unless it's looking obvious that landing wheels up is the best controlled way I believe & this is just my opinion that land with everything hanging out.

Having worked with the RFDS for many years I saw way too much of the results of blunt force trauma, enough to last me 4ever sadly!


Wmk2

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

I'm with you Wal.
'Some' years ago, a '310' with a fuel problem 'put down' in the desert- think N of Forrest & SE of Warburton - that general area.
The crash-landing was gear up, as far as I am aware.
As an aside, the flight was VFR, and No Radio to us, BUT, fortunately, an IFR acft was accompanying him, and when he had his problem, the IFR did all the radio reporting to us via HF.
About a year or so later, the young VFR pilot paid us a visit to thank us for 'services rendered'.
The sad part of all of this is that the pilot and his pax, all suffered spinal injuries from the impact / deceleration and the pilot was on crutches....and the condition was permanent....
I wonder if the use of the u/c would have resulted in a different outcome ....
I'll bet he does too.....
Not a good result.
As conditions / the situation dictate, would be my opinion.

A 210 on a salt lake NE of KG, many years ago, did it wheels down and flipped, causing big damage. A 'wheels up' would have been very little damage.

Horses for courses....
Cheers
:eek:

[PLovett]

Hey Griffo,

I wonder if the 310 is the one shown on this site:

Happy Endings (http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/happy-end-a-photo-book-about-miracles-in-aviation-history)

According to the blurb at least one of the photos was taken in Australia and the 310 looks like the most likely candidate.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Could well be Mr P,

I was in Perth FSC at the time, and I recall the only SAR aircraft at the time with the range and suitability was a long range helo from Adelaide....possibly a Puma...it's been 'a while'...
It certainly looks about right.
I am also a 4wd club member, and its on the list of places to visit whilst you're out that way.
Just a 'shell' now, I am told...not been there personally.

Cheers:ok: