Gear Up Landings

[Pilot DAR]

If you NEED a written checklist to put the gear down, you NEED to be doing something else.

+1

If a pilot chooses to use a checklist, and the nature of the operation accommodates that, I don't feel the feed to be critical. But, it's a check list - the pilot is using it to check that they have performed the required action, because they knew to do it. The checklist is not an instruction page - the flight manual, as a supplement to proper training is that.

EVERY landing I do in an RG aircraft will be preceded with my verbal statement - intentionally so another occupant of the aircraft can hear it - as to the landing gear position relative to the intended landing surface. If I do not do this, I will go around.

This is "configuration assurance". There is simply no excuse for a pilot not assuring the configuration of landing gear, fuel, engine and flaps. These are totally basic responsibilities of any competent pilot. It is the pilot's responsibility to maintain a routine, and break and distracting or non standard event, to assure that the aircraft is configured for the next phase of flight - this is a memory item for any aircraft type, operation or crew composition. If a pilot taxis in with the landing light or transponder still on, or the flaps down, I can live with this - metal won't be bent. A comment is warranted, to remind the pilot that they can do better, but an excuse might be accepted. Forgetting the primary things, or depending upon a checklist to remember them, is not acceptable.

[J.O.]

I once knew a pilot who never made mistakes and would admonish and belittle those who did. For him checklists were for wussies. He'd been everywhere and seen it all. Then one day we learned that he'd made the worst mistake of all. It was something that most folks had on their checklist. With that he became yet another opportunity for human pilots to learn from the mistakes of others because we will never live long enough to make them all ourselves.

[dogsridewith]

We'd learn more if you'd say what he missed.

[justagigolo77]

Was it Icarus flying to close to the sun? That ain't on my checklist!

[clunckdriver]

I think Transport Canada give the best illustration showing that slavish use of check lists, some of which are as long as the Dead Sea Scrolls, including forty five minutes idling in a King Air before even taxying, {I kid you not, we timed them!} and then having more gear up landings per hours flown than ANY other OC holder in Canada, during my time in the Ottawa area I can recall at least three! Is it any wonder Treasury took away their toys! By the way, please don't give me the usual, "Its because they only flew fifty hours a year", that's about what most retractable owners fly, but they scrape the paint of the underside at a much lower rate.

[J.O.]

Originally Posted by dogsridewith

We'd learn more if you'd say what he missed.

Sorry, you're right. He landed a C180 amphib on the water with the gear down.

Nice try Clunk. FWIW, I'm in the division that's kept current in simulators only for over 20 years. Sometimes those TC aircraft were the only way to get people out to see remote operators and for that they were a reasonable resource. But I think it's foolish to fly King Airs and Citations as a part time flying club just to stay current. It's also an inefficient use of tax dollars. Knowing what I know now about working in the gov't, I have no doubt that those checklists were another example of bureaucracy run amok. You should see what we go through to arrange travel and submit claims. Changing the constitution would be easier.

[clunckdriver]

"Nice try Clunck", What TF is that supposed to mean? The facts are plain to see in hours flown, Cadors ,or any other system you want to measure gear up landings per flight hours flown, Lets face it, TC flight operations is a bloody joke, {not all ways the fault of those within the organisation} I loved the excuse made by one TC employee with regards to the last Gear Up by them in this locality, "they were exhausted, they had been on duty for seven hours!" Come fly with us someday and see what a real duty day looks and feels like, but its OK, cause TC says so! I cautioned responders not to use the "Fifty hours a year" as an excuse, but you found a way around it, Well done!

[Wolfdog]

J.O., why the harp? I do not use a checklist day to day. I don't need one. If ANYTHING breaks/becomes abnormal, I pull one out. I don't fly an A380! I'd venture a guess, you don't either. Do you actually read the checklist to verify that the gear is down? Really?
WD

[J.O.]

It's not about the gear. It's about seasoned veterans posting questionable advice that could negatively affect the lives of impressionable up and comers who come to forums like this one to learn more about the business.

And no I haven't flown an A380 - just a couple of it's older, slightly smaller brothers which are well equipped to tell a pilot if their gear is not down. Theoretically, if everyone's on the ball and flying the SOP, it's a warning that should never be heard and yet it has been heard, numerous times. Should all of those pilots be grounded for failing to have a perfect memory? The warning wasn't installed just to raise the price of an airplane - it's there for a reason - to improve safety. Just like checklists.

You all can beak off all you like. Frankly I could care less what you think of my opinion. But if you're going to give bad advice, don't complain when someone calls you on it.

[clunckdriver]

JO, you talk of using the King Airs and Citation to get to remote areas, we too fly to remote areas but we don't require 5,000ft runway to land either one of these aircraft, last time I checked this was a requirement for TC to land these types according to their SOPs,{ has it changed?} however if TC wants to build 5,000 feet of black top at a few remote spots, I can think of a few operators who would be very grateful for such improvements!

[Chuck Ellsworth]

It's not about the gear. It's about seasoned veterans posting questionable advice that could negatively affect the lives of impressionable up and comers who come to forums like this one to learn more about the business.

So between the three of us, Clunkdriver, Wolfdog and me we are somehow giving questionable advice?

I know the other two posters personally and between the three of us we have flown around one hundred and fifty years accident free.

How come the way we configure airplanes has worked so well for us but if the new generations listen to our advice it will be detrimental for them?

Flying airplanes is not all that difficult that it requires some special talent to fly them safely...

.....we feel that complete reliance on written check lists results in a paint by numbers quality of artist.

This thread is about landing with the gear in the wrong position.

The real serious checks such as taking off with no fuel or the wrong tanks selected....trims way out of wack......controls locked and landing with the gear in the wrong position are checks that do not need a written check list.

[Pilot DAR]

It's not about the gear. It's about seasoned veterans posting questionable advice that could negatively affect the lives of impressionable up and comers who come to forums like this one to learn more about the business.

The impressionable up and comers will do well to read these forums to be reminded that their success in aviation will depend upon forming positive relationships with seasoned veterans. Some of those veterans will expect strict adherence to checklist and SOP's. Other veterans will more look for the instinctive, natural rhythm of cockpit actions that indicate that the pilot is ahead of the aircraft and the flight, rather than depending upon checklists. That rhythm should include reference to a checklist as appropriate, but not blind dependance. It's not the use of the checklist I challenge, but rather the possible dependance upon it, to the exclusion of using basic skills and airmanship.

"I landed with the wheels up because I dropped the checklist between the sets, so I could not finish reading it".

For a pilot with whom I fly to use a checklist is fine (as long as doing so does not detract from their other duties at that time), but I am very pleased to see a final independent check for configuration assurance.

A quick recheck short final: Gear as required - and position spoken out loud, even just to one's self, Prop(s) fine, flaps as required, landing clearance - water rudders up? It's doing more than the minimum, because a job worth doing is worth doing well.

The up and comer who uses the checklist well might get the piloting job. The up and comer who is ahead of the aircraft, and refers to the checklist might get the piloting job first.

[ExpatBrat]

Years ago, at Voyageur, a number of us flew the Cheyenne and the King Air A-100. You might have found yourself flying passengers on the King Air or the bag run or medevacs on either one. So one day it could be one type and the next day the other one.

We did a lot of quick turns, like 5 or 10 minutes. You would stop, shut down #1 and throw the bags out then get going again. Some crews, against company policy and basic airmanship, would start the after landing checks while still rolling out. On one type the gear lever was where the flap handle was on the other one. One time, the crew went to put the flaps up (on the King Air if memory serves) but instead grabbed the gear handle and guess what? The gear came up....rolling out after landing and still on the runway. It theoretically shouldn't have but it did. The Captain pushed the thrust levers up and they took off again, after bouncing off the runway. They did a lot of damage but lived. However it could have been a lot worse. They could have been hurt or worse.

The point I am making is that checklists are there for a reason. If nothing else they slow a pilot down so he doesn't do something stupid.

To the young pilots starting out, use them. Disregard the poster who implied that a hiring airline will be more impressed by your ability not to need one. That is b.s. At my airline, and every other one I've worked for (and that's quite a few now I'm afraid) if you did that on your interview sim they wouldn't hire you.

Plus...you'll live longer and you can get to the end of your career because of old age and without ever having heard the sound of bending metal.

[clunckdriver]

Ex-Pat, interesting story, but if one reads the many incident reports of gear up landings/wrong lever moved {gotta love those manufacturers who reverse pitch/mixture levers} reading the checklist in no way prevents this kind of error, what does prevent such blunders in a two crew aircraft is for the PNF confirming that the other guy has the correct control selected, and the PNF not moving it till he gets that confirmation. As for the procedures at the company you mention, sounds like all flight deck discipline and SOPs were thrown out the door on start up. As for flying differing types I once flew for an outfit in which we were "Multi Qualified Incompetent" on six different types, and nobody forgot the gear ever, or miss selected it, we used "flow checks" for normal operations, not endless checklists, by the way, some of these types were so bloody noisy one could hardly hear the other guy even with the intercom on max volume!

[JammedStab]

Originally Posted by clunckdriver

As for flying differing types I once flew for an outfit in which we were "Multi Qualified Incompetent" on six different types, and nobody forgot the gear ever, or miss selected it,

Wow, six different types at once. You just have to tell us what the types were now.

Sounds pretty interesting.

[clunckdriver]

They were, VV700 series, VV832 series, VV 816? series {I think} although all built by Mr. Vickers and Co, they were really totally different aircraft, from the cockpit, engines and radio/ navigation set ups, gross weights and speeds, the U/C Up/Down were two black buttons labelled "Chassis Up/Down! They were in fact so different that they were separate type ratings. DH Dove, DC3, DC4,and F.E on DC6, {a truly beautiful aircraft} F/O on C46, though I never got to fly it "on the line", but from what I heard I didn't miss much!, was scheduled to train on the Beech Queen Air, but returned to Canada when the layoff recalls started and hiring picked up .It all seems like yesterday, a sure sign of old age I fear!

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Wow, six different types at once. You just have to tell us what the types were now.

Sounds pretty interesting.

I guess it depends on what types you are current on, it would be difficult to stay current on six big jets, but on smaller airplanes it is a different story.

Reading Clunk's post reminded me of flying a lot of different aircraft for the same company and randomly going from one to another day after day.

Little single engine trainers, an Apache, a Beech 18, a Dehavilland Dove and a couple of helicopters.

And at night I rode my motorcycle home.....with no check list.

[Liobian]

Excuse self, if I missed it ,but no-one has commented on the warning horn which appears to sound after power reduction on that approach. I presume it's to indicate a configuration problem - so how come they ignored it right down to the runway ??

[clunckdriver]

On one Transport Canada gear up landing they had pulled the gear warning CB! If you watch the cockpit video of the TBM landing gear up{ in France I believe it was, }the bloody thing was blowing all the way down final. Both of these aircraft used written checklists, we had a Mooney gear up at a local airport a while back, as they transmitted turning final the gear warning could be heard over the pilots voice, ah well, as the FAA recently said, "you cant legislate against stupidity".

[767-300ER]

So let's compare accident rates between 705 (airline) operators (that use written, mechanical and or electronic checklists for all facets of their operations) and all the other operators in Canada....

Checklists are one of the reasons for their safe operations.

"Hey, I smoked 6 packs a day and I've never been sick...I guess that proves that the connection between smoking and lung cancer is crap..."

Transportation Safety Board of Canada - Statistical Summary - Aviation Occurrences 2012