Gear warning systems
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Cairns
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gear warning systems
There are many instances of the gear warning horn not being heard or not working. There seems to be two additional backup warning systems on the market. Both use a spoken warning through the pilots headset which is better that a horn. One uses airspeed and gear up to trigger the alarm P2 Audio Advisory System and the other uses a ground sensing transducer. Products for General Aviation Aircraft
Has anyone hade experience with either of these? how well do they work?
Has anyone hade experience with either of these? how well do they work?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is kind of a "to each their own" type thing. I've flown many aircraft with different, or no, warning systems whatever. I prefer no warning system, and a diligent pilot. The challenge with differing warning systems is that there always seems to be either a combination of circumstances which defeat it anyway, or they simply quit working, and the pilot does not notice. Wrong warnings ingrain deliberate ignorance.
The one says it will state "test ok", and that's nice, but if it has quit working, and does not say anything, the pilot won't know it's quit, and then land gear up (or down) without the warning (presuming that they're not paying attention in the first place).
Airspeed sensing systems have to be very carefully set up, or the pilot can get repeat warnings, which are simply a nuisance. I muffed setting one up in a 182 amphibian, and asked that it be set to warn slowing through 80 KIAS. 80 KIAS sounds like a good speed for approach in a 182, but it's too good. You slow through 80 KIAS, and get a gear warning, you speed up to 82, and the system resets itself, so you get another warning when you slow through 80 again, and so forth. So during testing, I just pulled the breaker, and did my standard double verbal look, check and speak the position. Or, you get the bug in the pitot tube....
Radar type systems seem interesting, though some ground surfaces absorb some radar frequencies.
The Piper Arrow had a neat trick for a while, the gear would drop itself below a certain speed. It caused a kind of problem though if you wanted to get out short, as you'd have to lock this system out to get the gear up at a speed to allow a climb out at Vx. They were removed - by AD, I think.
Pilots defeat the type design warning systems - Noise cancelling headsets can cancel warning horns. Gear warning horns which are throttle position activated, are defeated by pilots who carry power into the flare. Flying the Navajo, I got in the habit, in addition to my look and say, of closing the throttles well back on final, to listen for a horn, and then sneaking in a little power again, to stretch that approach and flare into a greaser again.
Amphibians don't know where you're landing, so they tell you all kinds of things about the gear position, no matter how diligent you were in selecting it correctly. Just distracting, particularly when you're trying to tuck into a tight lake.
In my opinion, instead of buying gadget systems, pilots should rely on the one (if any) which was approved with the type design, and dedicate themselves to simply paying attention to the gear position by the most simple means. No false alarms, failed alarms, missed or unheard warnings, or expensive systems to buy and maintain. There are a lot of things available for planes and pilots, which, in my opinion, planes and pilots should not need....
The one says it will state "test ok", and that's nice, but if it has quit working, and does not say anything, the pilot won't know it's quit, and then land gear up (or down) without the warning (presuming that they're not paying attention in the first place).
Airspeed sensing systems have to be very carefully set up, or the pilot can get repeat warnings, which are simply a nuisance. I muffed setting one up in a 182 amphibian, and asked that it be set to warn slowing through 80 KIAS. 80 KIAS sounds like a good speed for approach in a 182, but it's too good. You slow through 80 KIAS, and get a gear warning, you speed up to 82, and the system resets itself, so you get another warning when you slow through 80 again, and so forth. So during testing, I just pulled the breaker, and did my standard double verbal look, check and speak the position. Or, you get the bug in the pitot tube....
Radar type systems seem interesting, though some ground surfaces absorb some radar frequencies.
The Piper Arrow had a neat trick for a while, the gear would drop itself below a certain speed. It caused a kind of problem though if you wanted to get out short, as you'd have to lock this system out to get the gear up at a speed to allow a climb out at Vx. They were removed - by AD, I think.
Pilots defeat the type design warning systems - Noise cancelling headsets can cancel warning horns. Gear warning horns which are throttle position activated, are defeated by pilots who carry power into the flare. Flying the Navajo, I got in the habit, in addition to my look and say, of closing the throttles well back on final, to listen for a horn, and then sneaking in a little power again, to stretch that approach and flare into a greaser again.
Amphibians don't know where you're landing, so they tell you all kinds of things about the gear position, no matter how diligent you were in selecting it correctly. Just distracting, particularly when you're trying to tuck into a tight lake.
In my opinion, instead of buying gadget systems, pilots should rely on the one (if any) which was approved with the type design, and dedicate themselves to simply paying attention to the gear position by the most simple means. No false alarms, failed alarms, missed or unheard warnings, or expensive systems to buy and maintain. There are a lot of things available for planes and pilots, which, in my opinion, planes and pilots should not need....
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,306
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Step Turn,As an ex Airbus driver, one does not need the endless warnings on such basics as putting the bloody wheels down before landing, far better to develope a very firm procedure when crossing the fence to both LOOK at the position of the selector, the green lights and then say it out load if two crew or solo. Im in the early stages of training a new F/O on our corporate aircraft, a product of a system heavy on chatter, multi page check lists, and shy on REALLY doing it.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have personally adopted a philosophy of "configuration assurance". I use it as the sort of "master caution" of person warning systems. It is totally simple:
I am going to change my phase of flight. Doing this may require a change in configuration of the aircraft. Have I assured that configuration? One might use multi page checklists, if appropriate to the aircraft type, or for very simple aircraft it might be a few memory items. But you will assure configuration.
The notion of "wheels down" before landing is generally good, however that is not the solution to prevent disaster when flying amphibians. I trained a very experienced pilot to fly an amphibian. I had to train out this "check gear down" thing in his head. I trained him to check that the wheels are where they must be for what he plans to do next - the required configuration. I have certainly flown 182's 185's and Caravans in which the wheels better be retracted before you land!
For most GA planes, the items which if over looked, will result in some degree of disaster, are few - wheels and fuel are probably the biggest ones. So just get your head around assuring that those few items are appropriate to what you're about to make the plane do. Don't be lazy and wait for some kind of warning system to hopefully work, and remind you that you have forgotten - be ahead of the plane, and the warning systems! Do it yourself!
I am going to change my phase of flight. Doing this may require a change in configuration of the aircraft. Have I assured that configuration? One might use multi page checklists, if appropriate to the aircraft type, or for very simple aircraft it might be a few memory items. But you will assure configuration.
The notion of "wheels down" before landing is generally good, however that is not the solution to prevent disaster when flying amphibians. I trained a very experienced pilot to fly an amphibian. I had to train out this "check gear down" thing in his head. I trained him to check that the wheels are where they must be for what he plans to do next - the required configuration. I have certainly flown 182's 185's and Caravans in which the wheels better be retracted before you land!
For most GA planes, the items which if over looked, will result in some degree of disaster, are few - wheels and fuel are probably the biggest ones. So just get your head around assuring that those few items are appropriate to what you're about to make the plane do. Don't be lazy and wait for some kind of warning system to hopefully work, and remind you that you have forgotten - be ahead of the plane, and the warning systems! Do it yourself!
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Kenora
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't fly transport jets, and I don't fly floats. I've always felt that if a pilot truly NEEDS a warning system to prevent him from from forgetting the bloody wheels, he should really seek some other form of employment! How often do you leave home without your pants? I'm not a big believer in written check lists. Simply because if you NEED to refer to a checklist, sure as **** you're going to miss something, do to an untimely interruption. Eventually, you'll loose your place and miss something. There is NO better backup than a good flow. When something is amiss, by all means, pull out the checklist. That's what they're for! But if YOU really need gear down warning systems.....go flip burgers.
WD
WD
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Cairns
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for all your comments, however you seem to miss the point that a warning system is a last ditch effort by the airplane to stop the pilot hurting it. I agree with verbal, memorised and checks built into the flow. A warning system is definitely NOT something to tell you when to put the gear down. However, the single pilot, non bus driver, can be presented with unforeseen situations that lead to distraction (usually multiple) at the critical moments. A backup for when you are human is good.
Moderator
However, the single pilot, non bus driver, can be presented with unforeseen situations that lead to distraction (usually multiple) at the critical moments.
I've flown with pilots who have adorned their aircraft with all manner of gear advisories, AoA systems, and enough avionics to slow the alternator. Such supplementary systems are often the source of the distraction that they are supposed to prevent. And worse when there are layers of them.
What is regularly missed during STC'd system installation, are those really important words on the bottom every STC certificate. They say more or less, the installer is responsible to assure that there is no unfavourable characteristic resulting from the interaction of that and other STC'd mods which might be on the aircraft. Gear warning systems could enter this area, as their introduction could affect human factors, or their latent failure could create risks associated with misplaced dependance.
Or, you have a bare bones RG aircraft, and you know it's all on you. You configure the aircraft properly, or you suffer the consequences. It's kinda like contacts lists in your phone, who remembers phone numbers any more? I nearly never use contact lists or speed dial, I dial by hand every time, and I remember most numbers. I operate my landing gear by hand, I speak the position words aloud, and I remember to do it next time. So far, so good.
Like parachutes on Cirrus', some pilots will not be dissuaded, and that's their privilege. But, you asked the question, and my personal preference is as few systems as are needed to safely operate the plane. Nothing added which is not vital.
Gear-Up Landing In A 747?
Here's a pertinent article by John Deakin from his excellent Avweb column "Pelican's Perch", about how he nearly landed a 747 gear-up:
Pelican's Perch #80: Gear-Up Landing In A 747? - AVweb Features Article
Pelican's Perch #80: Gear-Up Landing In A 747? - AVweb Features Article
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There sure are a lot of words devoted to this subject here but the correct message is "keep your airplane maintained" and "don't rely on warning systems as to remind you to configure your airplane properly."
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Around
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with the less automation the more the pilot tends to be on it.
I fly a PC12 and a 185 amphib, both very different.
The 185 has a very simple system, one light for up, one for down, and windows on the floats for indicator blocks.
I've always completed my flows and followed up with the check list, then there is the final before touch down sight picture gear check, all I make aloud.
The simpler aircraft the more diligent the pilot becomes.
Plenty of very professional gold bar wearing, huge check list carrying people gear up, just look at some of those college programs, I believe Senica won't allow the kids to even cycle the gear in the pattern. All it is, is making a very easy and repeatable system, NOT relying on horns, buzzers, lights, or checklists, all those things are great but are secondary to a good flow and procedures.
I fly a PC12 and a 185 amphib, both very different.
The 185 has a very simple system, one light for up, one for down, and windows on the floats for indicator blocks.
I've always completed my flows and followed up with the check list, then there is the final before touch down sight picture gear check, all I make aloud.
The simpler aircraft the more diligent the pilot becomes.
What's wrong with adopting a professional attitude and use the simplest and approved piece of,paper that comes with the airplane...a checklist!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The simpler aircraft the more diligent the pilot becomes."
I don't buy it. So a pilot in a twin otter is more "diligent" than a pilot in a 777? Automation and warnings tend to be more prevalent in more complex aircraft. If the gear is down and "welded" that's one less thing to even deal with.
An interesting document that may be worth reading is FAA AC 25.703-1. It helps explain the balance between reasonable levels of warning and (for takeoff config) and overload.
I don't buy it. So a pilot in a twin otter is more "diligent" than a pilot in a 777? Automation and warnings tend to be more prevalent in more complex aircraft. If the gear is down and "welded" that's one less thing to even deal with.
An interesting document that may be worth reading is FAA AC 25.703-1. It helps explain the balance between reasonable levels of warning and (for takeoff config) and overload.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So a pilot in a twin otter is more "diligent" than a pilot in a 777?
Yeah, yeah, I know, Asiana went bump in SFO, I think that was an example of the back side (pun intended) of the power curve of pilot's lack of lack of diligence - or awareness and skill......
This article, posted elsewhere, seems relevant.... (I re quote a poster on a different site):
Automated cockpits affect pilots' emergency skills
Press Trust of India | Washington December 2, 2014 Last Updated at 15:50 IST
Automated cockpits may negatively impact pilots' thinking skills such as navigating and their ability to diagnose troublesome situations, a new study has warned.
Researchers from the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society in US studied how the prolonged use of cockpit automation negatively impacts pilots' ability to remember how to perform these key tasks.
"There is widespread concern among pilots and air carriers that as the presence of automation increases in the airline cockpit, pilots are losing the skills they still need to fly the airplane the 'old-fashioned way' when the computers crash," said Steve Casner, coauthor of study and research psychologist at NASA's Ames Research Centre.
Casner and coauthors Richard Geven, Matthias Recker, and Jonathan Schooler studied 16 experienced pilots as they flew routine and nonroutine flight scenarios in a Boeing 747-100 simulator.
Levels of automation available to the pilots were varied as the researchers graded pilots' performance. The pilots also reported what they were thinking about as they flew.
Results indicated that pilots' instrument-scanning and "stick-and-rudder" skills remained reasonably intact despite prolonged periods of disuse.
More significantly, however, the study found that pilots often struggled with maintaining awareness of the airplane's position when the GPS and map display were disabled, or with troubleshooting problems when the automated systems were not available to provide hints.
Furthermore, pilots who relied more heavily on the computers to handle these tasks and who allowed their thoughts to drift during flight were more likely to suffer the effects of rusty cognitive skills.
"Our results suggest that we might be a bit less concerned about things that pilots do 'by hand' in the cockpit and a bit more concerned about those things that they do 'by mind,'" said Casner.
"Pilots' ability to remain mindful and engaged as they now watch computers do most of the flying may be a key challenge to keeping their cognitive skills fresh," Casner added.
The study was published in the journal Human Factors.
Press Trust of India | Washington December 2, 2014 Last Updated at 15:50 IST
Automated cockpits may negatively impact pilots' thinking skills such as navigating and their ability to diagnose troublesome situations, a new study has warned.
Researchers from the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society in US studied how the prolonged use of cockpit automation negatively impacts pilots' ability to remember how to perform these key tasks.
"There is widespread concern among pilots and air carriers that as the presence of automation increases in the airline cockpit, pilots are losing the skills they still need to fly the airplane the 'old-fashioned way' when the computers crash," said Steve Casner, coauthor of study and research psychologist at NASA's Ames Research Centre.
Casner and coauthors Richard Geven, Matthias Recker, and Jonathan Schooler studied 16 experienced pilots as they flew routine and nonroutine flight scenarios in a Boeing 747-100 simulator.
Levels of automation available to the pilots were varied as the researchers graded pilots' performance. The pilots also reported what they were thinking about as they flew.
Results indicated that pilots' instrument-scanning and "stick-and-rudder" skills remained reasonably intact despite prolonged periods of disuse.
More significantly, however, the study found that pilots often struggled with maintaining awareness of the airplane's position when the GPS and map display were disabled, or with troubleshooting problems when the automated systems were not available to provide hints.
Furthermore, pilots who relied more heavily on the computers to handle these tasks and who allowed their thoughts to drift during flight were more likely to suffer the effects of rusty cognitive skills.
"Our results suggest that we might be a bit less concerned about things that pilots do 'by hand' in the cockpit and a bit more concerned about those things that they do 'by mind,'" said Casner.
"Pilots' ability to remain mindful and engaged as they now watch computers do most of the flying may be a key challenge to keeping their cognitive skills fresh," Casner added.
The study was published in the journal Human Factors.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Scotland
Age: 80
Posts: 451
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the mid eighties I was in Islamabad to unground an aircraft and had a walk round a PIA 747 that had landed wheels up. Some years later I met the FE involved who gave me a rather complicated reason for the incident. It was a good landing as the damage was absolutely symmetrical! I thought at the time that the damage to the keel beam would have made repair uneconomical but it was in fact repaired and returned to service.
