Beech 1900 landing gear incident at KFLL

[vapilot2004]

From Miami Herald:

The right landing gear collapsed on a Continental Connection flight landing at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport Sunday afternoon. No one was injured.

Flight 9137 departed from the Bahamas and was making a scheduled landing in Fort Lauderdale shortly before 5 p.m., said airport spokesman Steve Belleme.

There were 23 people on board, including two pilots and a flight attendant.

The passengers were bused to the terminal while the disabled plane, which was tilted to the right side, remained on the closed runway, Belleme said.

An indicator in the cockpit showed the right landing gear on the Beech 1900 was unsafe, Belleme said.

The Broward Sheriff's Office Fire Rescue rushed to the runway as a precaution.

Heard they did a bit of circling trying to sort it out before finally landing with no joy on the gear problem - Good job flight crew.

[DownIn3Green]

Let's see here...19 pax seats + 2 pilot's seats + 1 (possibly?) J/S = only 21 or 22...and there were 23 on board?

If so, the Capt is going to learn a valuable lesson about being a "nice guy"...

[Keygrip]

I'm sure the flight attendant had a seat, too - facing backwards, no doubt.

[Heilhaavir]

Downingreen, ever thought of a lap child?

[Fokker28]

No flight attendant installed.

[captjns]

Gulfstream International's B-1900Cs do not have flight attendant seats. It is possible that the Miami Herald got the wrong information about the aircraft. Gulfstream also has the Brasilia 120 in it's stable too, which has a flight attendant seat.

[barit1]

http://images.ibsys.com/2006/0522/9252376_480X360.jpg

[vapilot2004]

From the FAA S Region:

************************************************************ ********************
** Report created 5/23/2006 Record 18 **
************************************************************ ********************

IDENTIFICATION
Regis#: 69549 Make/Model: B190 Description: 1900 (C-12J)
Date: 05/21/2006 Time: 2058

Event Type: Incident Highest Injury: None Mid Air: N Missing: N
Damage: Minor

LOCATION
City: FORT LAUDERDALE State: FL Country: US

DESCRIPTION
N6949, A GULFSTREAM FLIGHT 9137, BEECH 1900D ACFT, ON LANDING THE RIGHT
MAIN LANDING GEAR COLLAPSED, NO INJURIES REPORTED, FORT LAUDERDALE, FL

INJURY DATA Total Fatal: 0
# Crew: 2 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Pass: 23 Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:
# Grnd: Fat: 0 Ser: 0 Min: 0 Unk:

WEATHER: METAR 09009KT 10SM FEW035 29/19 A2996

OTHER DATA

Departed: SAN ANDROS, BAHAMAS Dep Date: Dep. Time:
Destination: FORT LAUDERDALE, FL Flt Plan: IFR Wx Briefing: Y
Last Radio Cont: LOCAL CONTROL
Last Clearance: CLRD TO LAND

FAA FSDO: FT LAUDERDALE, FL (SO17) Entry date: 05/22/2006


I see it's a D model - but they only carry 19 as well. :confused:

............unless as HHV suggests - 2 babies on board.

[Soft Ride]

maybe there was a stow away pax from bahamas!
Infant are not accounted as pax in the manifest. And there is no cockpit jump seat. So it is an interesting maths problem!

[flat-tire]

I wonder if the FO will have to pay for that flight.

[sinala1]

Infant are not accounted as pax in the manifest

I am surprised to hear that - is that a common rule in that part of the world? :confused: How do the crew/loaders/company have any way of knowing the full number of souls on board?

[West Coast]

"Infant are not accounted as pax in the manifest"

Perhaps at your airline, but not at all airlines.

[PA31 pilot]

Whats the big deal?
In NZ we can carry up to 24 pax (2 Crew, 19 Pax and 3 Infants)
Im sure it didn't make any difference to the landing gear functioning correctly.

[WasHighPing Duck]

Helo all,

I was on the flight, no flight attendant and four very young children.
Two were held on their parents laps.

There were a few tense moments when the gear was first lowered because we were on approach and not very high and it's so easy to get distracted with the problem and not fly the plane.
I felt it might be and inopertune time to stall. :)

Yes we did go back out to sea after the problem was discovered.
The pilot told us what was happening, however the plane is noisy and when you have problems diction is not a top priority.
We knew what the problem was, we could hear the gear going up and down and we saw the pilots pumping the handle also.
We came back in and made a pass by the tower to try to verify if the gear was down.
From the windows it was possible to tell that the starboard gear had not locked in place.

On the second approach we were told that we would be making an emergency landing and that the engines would be shut down before we touched.
Everything went by the book, a better two wheel landing than most of the three wheeled ones I've experienced.
We were stalled just before we touched as the engines stopped and the ground effects kept us off the colapsing wheel untill about fifty feet from stoping.

I belive we skidded on the collapsed wheel sticking out behind the wing as it rubbed on the flap and the wheel door that opened to lower the wheel.
Propeller didn't touch or the the wing tip as far as I could tell.
I may have better picture than most I've seen, will know when they are developed.
It was really quite an interesting experience and for me the highlight of the whole trip.

Dan

[broadreach]

Bless you Dan for the cool, factual passenger report.

[WasHighPing Duck]

Hello all,

I have some Jpegs of my photos I would Email to someone if they could host them somewhere to post them in the thread for all to see.

Dan

[cwatters]

There are several free and easy to use hosts with no need to register etc. Try...

FreeImageHosting.Net
http://www.freeimagehosting.net

[WasHighPing Duck]

Hello all,

http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/th.77b1a19246.jpg (http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?77b1a19246.jpg)

http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/th.c8bae357d6.jpg (http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?c8bae357d6.jpg)

http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/th.d0aa8b9509.jpg (http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?d0aa8b9509.jpg)

http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/th.2363a1e040.jpg (http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?2363a1e040.jpg)

I don't see the thumbnaiils on my system but they do bring up the pictures for me, do they work for anyone else?

Thank you CW. :)

Dan

[broadreach]

Thanks Dan,

Never realised how many aerodynamic appendages B-1900s had. Is it a record? Winglets, two ventral thingies, six vertical stabilisers (of which four must surely have other names ending with ... attenuator or similar). Can someone knowlegeable explain how all that came about?

[Tinstaafl]

The Beech 1900 is a somewhat extreme development of the venerable Kingair series which, in turn, were developed from the Queenair.

The additional aerodynamic devices would be doing things like widen a CG envelope that would be rather constrained without them, maintain stability in various axes eg pitch & yaw, provide pitch down forces at high angles of attack or improve the effective span to compensate for increased weight.

[broadreach]

Thank you Tinns. Further googling traces the 1900 back to the 99 and that to the Beech 18.

[WasHighPing Duck]

Hello all,

I say if the way this plane handled from balanced flying to the lowest energy touchdown possible then more aerodynamic appendages for everyone! :)

Dan

[banana9999]

Bless you Dan for the cool, factual passenger report.
How do you know it's factual :confused:

[broadreach]

The obvious answer, Banana, is that one can't be certain it's factual. You read, then you read again, and you make a value judgement, that's all. WasHighPing Duck's description of the incident - and he made it plain it was from a passenger's viewpoint - was straitforward, believable, no great fuss, just what he saw. The NTSB report will verify or deny that some day. In the meantime, he's contributed some interesting text and photos, not least those demonstrating how the pilots kept the (full) aircraft from settling to starboard until the last few seconds, and still smack on the centreline.

You asked!

edited 30 Jun: ok not quite "smack on the centreline", just a few metres to the right of it.

[barit1]

...
The additional aerodynamic devices would be doing things like widen a CG envelope that would be rather constrained without them, maintain stability in various axes eg pitch & yaw, provide pitch down forces at high angles of attack or improve the effective span to compensate for increased weight.

But considering all the additional intersection drag at the root of each -- ummm -- device, one can't help but think there are better ways to do the job.

And - increasing the effective span must have the structural effect of increasing the physical span, in that the spanwise center of lift is moved outboard. Thus all else being equal, the center section sees higher bending loads.

On the other hand - since this is the biggest buggy built in the Beech barn, maybe the constraint is the size of the hangar door.

[WasHighPing Duck]

Hello all,

Doesn't the unique photo I posted of the landing before the fire dept. got there to foam at least prove I was a passenger?

I sat in the centre back, three seats there and one of the guys next to me wasn't enjoying the ride near as much as I was so to take his mind off it I told him airline jokes.

A plane flying over the Atlantic announces that they lost an engine and would be a half an hour late.
Then engine 2 an hour late, and engine 3 an hour and a half late.
Finally the Newfoundlander speaks up, "I hope they don't lose that last engine or we'll be up here all night"!

Don't like it, either did he, the guy next to me that didn't enjoy the emergency.
Look I was under pressure; I didn't have a plethora of material.
I was too busy watching what was going on!

We did secure heavy stuff in the cabin before the landing.
Everyone was helpful.
A passenger from up front spoke to the Pilots and came back to look at the wheels from the second last windows. We made ourselves as small as possible but we were in the way of the last windows.
His estimation was that they both looked down but they were different.
One of the guys next to me said "what’s he know about wheels", that struck me funny because I was more concerned if the guy was good at sesame street, "one of these things is not like the other". :)

The moral of the flight "Wings Good, Wheels not so Good!"

Dan

[Zeffy]

Hello all,

http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/th.77b1a19246.jpg (http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?77b1a19246.jpg)

http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/th.c8bae357d6.jpg (http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?c8bae357d6.jpg)

http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/th.d0aa8b9509.jpg (http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?d0aa8b9509.jpg)

http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/th.2363a1e040.jpg (http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?2363a1e040.jpg)

I don't see the thumbnaiils on my system but they do bring up the pictures for me, do they work for anyone else?

Thank you CW. :)

Dan


Dan -

Off the thread topic, but the same situation for me -- the thumbnails are just little squares with red 'x's inside. And clicking the boxes reveals your pictures.

Yet, Barit's pic appeared just fine.

Can anyone offer some suggestions (settings, etc.) that would enable the thumbnails to display on my laptop?

Thanks,

Zeff

[albi]

Dan -

Off the thread topic, but the same situation for me -- the thumbnails are just little squares with red 'x's inside. And clicking the boxes reveals your pictures.

Yet, Barit's pic appeared just fine.

Can anyone offer some suggestions (settings, etc.) that would enable the thumbnails to display on my laptop?

Thanks,

Zeff

HI

You need to temporarily allow cookiies.. if you look at the bottom of your screen you will see a red circle with a line through it.. click on that and select the temporarily accept cookies.. and view away!!!

Albi:}

[Sheep Guts]

Looks like a good landing considering. Well done to the Crew.

The damage looks relatively minor aswell.


Sheep

[Trogdor]

21 occupants? I am a 1900 CA and about half of our 1900's have a 20th O2 mask. This limits our maximum passengers in those aircraft to 20 (at least one being a lap child.) I was just curious if anyone knows if Gulfstream's aircraft have two extra masks, therefore allowing for 21 pax?

By the way, lap children are counted as passengers at my airline.

[Coastrider26]

Back in the late 90's they had a max 19 (adult) pax. These planes came from COEX and I'm pretty sure they're 19 seaters.

[Soft Ride]

"Infant are not accounted as pax in the manifest"
Perhaps at your airline, but not at all airlines.

When I say not accounted as pax, means that there are listed on the manifest but do not need seats. From 0 to less than 2 years old.
I think it's in line with ICAO

[Hiflyer1757]

fwiw the 3M B1900d's come from a variety of carriers...including UAX cast off's. The incident closed the only main runway at KFLL for over 4 hrs and delayed a slew of flights that were suddenly overweight for the shorter diagonal runway...compounded by the fact there was only 1 tanker truck available to defuel the entire airport. Those that had not been fueled left light and flagstopped for fuel if needed. Further this was the second B1900D 3M gear incident in the last 6 months or so that blocked the main runway for a lengthy amount of time. As a result there is talk of sending these down to KMIA in the future which has far more concrete available to be closed without seriously impacting their operation.