Beech 1900 Belly landing at Woodbourne (NZWB), New Zealand

[DontPanic_DontPanic]

Just happened a couple of hours ago.
Below is from a local newspaper
............................................................ .........................
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4099286a10.html

[Tarq57]

Thanks for that. Unusually good photo.
(From the story) Air New Zealand spokesman David Jamieson said the aircraft had an undercarriage malfunction.
Oh. So they didn't choose to land like that. Good.

Well done the crew! Nice outcome.

[MikeAlphaTangoTango]

Wish I knew how to embed images! Worth a look.

[swh]

MikeAlphaTangoTango "Wish I knew how to embed images! Worth a look."
Here you go ...
http://www.stuff.co.nz/images/302540.jpg

[Karaka]

http://www.tv3.co.nz/VideoBrowseAll/ExtendedVideo/tabid/315/articleID/29084/Default.aspx#video

[planecrazi]

An amazing photo and well done to the crew. Brilliant!:D
Having flown this type many years ago (UC, long thin type), I remember that the gear was kept up with hydraulic pressure, as there were no uplocks. If the gear was stuck, then possibly the gear was somehow stuck in the wheel well??

[Tarq57]

Just watched on tv3 news, and on the website. Had to have a wee guffaw at how far removed from reality the reporter was, in describing it as a "heavy" landing. It was very smooth, and very well controlled. Pax kept informed throughout, cabin properly prepared, well done, folks.:ok:
But, wow! Did those props fly apart, or what?

[fmgc]

Fantastic pic, talk about capturing the moment!

Out of interest do the B1900 checks require the engines to be shut down before touch down?

[Tarq57]

do the B1900 checks require the engines to be shut down before touch down?

Quite the opposite, apparently, according to the thread on D&G forums. Engines to be secured after touchdown.

[Coastrider26]

Also flew the UC & UB series and we had a couple of problems with the landing gear which all came down after using the handpump using much more than the amount of movements said by Raytheon, one of our crews had over 200 movements but they had a lot of good luck as there was a rowing team on board.

The UC gear up line might have a problem not depressurizing and keeping the gear up.

[smith]

I'm not a pro-pilot and these guys did a magnificent job, however as it was a small commuter plane would it not have been safer/caused less damage to aircraft and runway/reduced debris on the runway if the aircraft had landed on the grass, parallel to the runway, provided there were no obstacles such as papi's etc to get in the way. Just wondering.
I guess it is standard procedure to land on the runway to allow easier access by the fire trucks and emergency vehicles.

[Tarq57]

I'm not a pro pilot either, but grass is more likely to cause the aircraft to flip, due to its relatively irregular surface, and even if no flipping occurs, will likely cause more damage, for the same reason.
I've landed on the grass at NZWB, and it feels pretty darned good, one of the better grass runways, but the suspension soaks up a lot of the bumps. Also, despite appearances to the contrary, grass can be almost as hard (unyielding) as seal to land on. Hard+ bumpy = broken aeroplane.

[aulglarse]

When landing on a sealed runway, foam sprayed from the rffs doesn't absorb into the surface like it would from grass.:8

[bomarc]

foaming of runways has been suspended for more than 20 years in the US. did they foam the runways in NZ for this landing? or was the foam applied post crash?

someone mentioned props coming apart...couldn't see video. is that the case or did the engines get shut down prior to touchdown? props could be slowed with pt6 type engine without actually shutting off fuel.

just wondering

[MancRed]

Great images well done to the crew smashing job in bringing the baby down :D

[foamer]

Do runways get foamed prior to landing anywhere anymore?
In the UK all RFFS respond and deploy to the incident rather than foaming the runway prior to landing.

[bomarc]

this history of foaming runways is an interesting one. as I said, in the USA no foam for over twenty years at civil airport...none at military airports for over 15.


HIGH protein foam was used and it did help a tiny bit...time constraints demanded foaming within 15 minutes of landing. foams were made from animal byproducts, hence the term "BLOOD AND GUTS" foam. very hard to clean up. Very specialized gadgets to make the foam.

Current foam is more like soap and is used after a landing/crash.

in the old days, gasoline was a bit more likely to explode than jet a...at military fields planes with nuclear bombs were given every advantage ;-)

I would have to feel that I would want to shut down the engines prior to touchdown and try to get props to stop by selecting feather...having them break apart on touchdown might be bad...of course the "book" has to be followed and once shutdown, YOU ARE LANDING...no go around.


bravo to aany crew with a good landing!

[visibility3miles]

Incredible photo. Great landing!

[patrickal]

Great job by the crew, but ditto the questions on the engine shutdown. I don't think I'd like being a passenger sitting alongside those props as they fragment and fly apart. The skin on a B1900 is probably not going to do more than slow a direct hit down a bit. Any pieces coming through the skin or the glass could be lethal.

[Runaway Gun]

Top marks to the pilots involved, and the safety crew on standby at Woodbourne. Everyone got out safe, and the passengers gave great reports to the media. Let's not over-analyse what the pilots did too much, it all turned out exceptionally well. :ok:

[canadair]

lads, bottom line,
crew got it down, got it stopped, well done.
not easy, but fantastic,
bits flew off, whatever, stopped.
I say good call, and good landing
cheers

[motherbird]

Great landing, just glad that I wasn't on board.

[Tarq57]

The engined were running at touchdown, at what appeared to be normal rpm.
AFAIK foaming of runways does not occur in NZ, for two reasons (that I know of): If the RFS use up the HFFF by applying it to the touchdown zone (there is rarely enough to do the entire runway) it takes time to refill the tanks. In that time any fire or spark suppressing effect of the liquid applied will have decreased significantly. HFFF doesn't actually stay "foamy" very long, its effectiveness on runways is considered to be limited, at best. It's best applied, as it was in this case, after the aircraft is stopped, to prevent/contain a post-crash fire.
According to a post re the same incident on the D&G forum, the fuselage is reinforced at the prop line, and no windows directly in line with them.

[28L]

It would seem to me that nobody - manufacturer, operator, ATC or pilots - could have done anything to have made a better job of it. Terrific job.
Talk all you like about landing on grass, using foam etc etc, but could the outcome have been any better? No. Nuff said :ok:
Edited to say.....I would never normally comment on an incident without first hearing the facts, but in this case they would appear to speak for themselves :)

[skiingman]

Great job by the crew, but ditto the questions on the engine shutdown. I don't think I'd like being a passenger sitting alongside those props as they fragment and fly apart. The skin on a B1900 is probably not going to do more than slow a direct hit down a bit. Any pieces coming through the skin or the glass could be lethal.

I was wondering what the FARs say about that, but can't find a requirement for a "blade off" test for props.

§25.875Reinforcement near propel-
lers.
(a) Each part of the airplane near the
propeller tips must be strong and stiff
enough to withstand the effects of the
induced vibration and of ice thrown
from the propeller.
(b) No window may be near the pro-
peller tips unless it can withstand the
most severe ice impact likely to occur.

I'm guessing if the procedure is to not stop the props, the Beechcraft folks are quite sure props aren't going to go into the cabin. Just a guess.

[bomarc]

any reinforcement in the prop area of the fuselage is just for the ice shedding just as the gentleman wrote above.

if anyone actually has the checklist of gear up landing from beach, I hope they will post it.

feathering props on short final might prolong float as the drag is suddenly reduced...I've seen this in planes that have shut down and feathered on short short final.

doing so does comit the plane to land, no last second go around.

tough call, safest way to keep your license is to do what the book says...

[spongebob_bm]

Row 1 has no window, but sitting in row 2 still feels (and looks) very close to the prop! Pilots did a great job especially in their briefing to the passengers.
Short video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2KsFBITkZU) I shot a few years ago on a Air Georgian 1900D

Sorry for the quality but I shot it with a very old digital camera

[sequ]

As far as I remember, the procedure calls for not feathering to maintain complete, positive control all the way to touchdown. Furthermore, the blades are composite and are designed to shatter in exactly the way they did. Also, the gear, with their tires in the retracted position, allow for contact of the tire on all three gear. There are no wheel well doors and the tires protrude slightly below the fuselage. Never confirmed directly from a Raytheon rep, but was taught as such by my instructors at FSI in Wichita. Notice no sparks under the airplane???
All of this was a long time ago and is slightly ¨foggy¨, but I believe this is as textbook as it gets.
Saludos,
SEQU

[bomarc]

sequ I believe is quite right.

even the dc3 had gear that stuck out a little bit in case of a gear up landing.

[flyby_kiwi]

Row one of this company's 1900 has no window (where the baggage locker normally is on most others), row two also has no windows do due reinforcing for the ice off the props which i thought was made of kevlar(?), eitherway I would have thought it would be strong enough to stop part of the blade coming inside if the situation arose.
As sequ mentions, feathering the props could have some cost benifit but the consequences of getting it wrong far outweigh any potential benefits. Especially so for the national flag carrier, its probley better off making the insurance claim than putting the punters at undue risk.

[flyby_kiwi]

Here is a link to the D&G forum where one of the gingerbeers has posted some good pics of the damage (not too much all things considered)

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?p=3357595&posted=1#post3357595

[Mark1234]

Totally uneducated observation, but given the engine location, the props were going to die feathered or not, presumably requiring engine attention in eithe case.

Given that, and assuming the a/c is built to ensure the prop doesn't finish up inside, retaining the go-around option seems reasonable?

[flyby_kiwi]

I concurr, an its company policy

[SpootNICK]

I agree with most of the above. Text book touchdown. No doubt about it.

Well done to the crew!

Obvioulsly depending on the runway condition and length, I think i would of personaly elected to feather the props.....and then cut the fuel off at about 10 feet agl. Being a two crew operation, the PNF could of been asked to take care of this just prior to touchdown. The PF would then be able to concentrate on getting the flare right, and hopefully bring her to a stop on the runway.

Here is a clip about a similar aircraft (Beech 100 i think) landing with its wheels up, but feathering the props just prior to touchdown. Saving the engines and airframe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVmHyJMDcus

(excuse the cheezy news readers in the background)

Then again, the PT-6 being of modular design, I am sure the majority of that engine could still be salvaged and repaired. This is not my concern. I would be concerned about blade fragments possibly coming through the cabin, or the engines themselves ingesting grit and catching fire.

I remember the 1900 had a kevlar plate built into the cabin walls around the prop area (to prevent ice from breaking off the props and damaging the pressure hull) This should provide some prtection against any flying prop fragments.

Your thoughts?

SN

[planecrazi]

Having spent many years flying the B200 with high flotation gear, I remember in the blue checklist QRH, it mentions that during a wheels up landing, differential braking can be used for directional control. This was because the bigger wheels actually stuck out beneith and could still be used to your advantage.

[lomapaseo]

RE:
I was wondering what the FARs say about that, but can't find a requirement for a "blade off" test for props.
§25.875Reinforcement near propel-
lers.
(a) Each part of the airplane near the
propeller tips must be strong and stiff
enough to withstand the effects of the
induced vibration and of ice thrown
from the propeller.
(b) No window may be near the pro-
peller tips unless it can withstand the
most severe ice impact likely to occur.
I'm guessing if the procedure is to not stop the props, the Beechcraft folks are quite sure props aren't going to go into the cabin. Just a guess.
The only requirement for consideration of an "uncontained" prop blade is similar to the same for any uncontained bits from inside the engines as well.
in simple terms, the aircraft systems need be designed to be, redundant, or shielded, to a practical extent, from the debris.
However, it is not practical, to provide any meaningful protection from a whole prop blade release anywhere in line with the prop swath, end of story.
by-the-way, in the case of props striking the pavement hard enough to break off, their tangential acceleration and hazard to the cabin will be greatly reduced.

[Sir Osis of the river]

Bomarc,

Yep, the DC3 gear also stuck out and full breaking was available in a gear-up. In addition, our procedure was for the Capt. to do the landing from the right seat,(Co-Jo sitting in engineers seat or back), because the old metal blade would most often lodge right in the Capt seat if it came off.

This would appear not to be a problem with the composite blades on the 1900

Loks like a good job. Well done boys and girls.:D

[skiingman]

...in the case of props striking the pavement hard enough to break off, their tangential acceleration and hazard to the cabin will be greatly reduced.

Yeah I was guessing that is a big part of the deal. Enough energy around for a fantastic picture, but not entire blades leaving the hub tangentially and making a beeline for the cabin. And wow, what a fantastic photo.

[bomarc]

Interesting side note and worthy of consideration for all pilots. the medical officer for the town in which the emergency landing was made is saying the pilots made a huge error by landing there.

while I don't know much about New Zealand, I do appreciate that a pilot should take into account emergency response capability, including hospitals.

the doctor in question indicated that the small town hospital ( level 2 ...whatever that means) would have been overwelmed(sp?)

[lomapaseo]

Interesting side note and worthy of consideration for all pilots. the medical officer for the town in which the emergency landing was made is saying the pilots made a huge error by landing there.
while I don't know much about New Zealand, I do appreciate that a pilot should take into account emergency response capability, including hospitals.

I imagine that the pilot intended to make a belly landing rather than a crash landing. I can't recall much experience with multiple injuries being involved with belly landings.

[barit1]

OT -

Just off the NW corner of NZWB is this Argosy -

Go to maps.google.com , enter -41.512253,173.8585 in the search window, switch to satellite view, and zoom in!

[bomarc]

no one plans to have a crash landing...but as prudent pilots we might all want to think about resources on the ground for a problem.

I am pleased with the safe outcome of this flight, but it is good to think about all factors.

[Orographic]

the doctor in question indicated that the small town hospital ( level 2 ...whatever that means) would have been overwelmed(sp?) an Eagle Air plane with 17 people on boardGranted this is an opinion, but i think that doctor might well have just been grandstanding, or more likely didn't have a clue about the size of the aircraft.

*All* hopsitals in the area ( remember .mil will have their own facilitys as well, and there will be a possibility of helicopter transfer to wellington) overwelmed by 17 casulties? don't make it laugh, rolling a bus produces more.

[titi13]

I'm captain on this type since 8 years and I experienced over 3500 hours on UE and and UC. in 2002 we shooted a rabbit during take off course at approximatively 90 knots. A blade of the propeller as broken. the Raytheon pilot's check list say that during collision with ground, greater is the risk that propeller or portion of propeller separating from hub causing damage to the fuselage and physical harm to passengers. So if it is possible, a good idéa is to let the seat concerned empty during this type of landing. In case of 19 passengers no chance!!!!
have good flights

[werbil]

Well done to the crew - this post is for those who would have done it differently :hmm:.

With alloy propellors, I was told by an engineering type that if the prop was feathered and stopped it would dig into the ground, causing a large amount of damage to the engine (let alone to the aircraft and pax) due to the inability of the prop to fold, whereas if the prop was in fine pitch and rotating slowly the blades would fold nicely - sometimes not even damaging the crankshaft in a piston engine. I have no experience with composite props - but I understand that carbon fibre shatters into a fine dust absorbing a huge amount of energy in the process.

I remember a lot of hanger talk about aircraft with 2 bladed props - some pilots said they would shut down the engines and feather the props on final and then use the starter motor to rotate them so the blades were horizontal :eek:. I heard of one very serious accident when this was attempted and the pilot undershot and the aircaft ended up in a drainage ditch. :ugh:

As to the grass vs hard surfaces - an engineering type told me that grass can get into to the joins between aircraft skins and the pull the skin off resulting in far more damage to the structure underneath.

I fly amphib caravans which have a PT6. Sometimes on the water we will shut down in beta - and it takes a looooong time for the blades to stop. Whilst the gas generator is running there is oil pressure for the bearings in the reduction gear box, when the gas generator stops so does the oil.

I'm sure the manufacturer takes all factors into account when writing the manuals.

I am not into being a hero to try and save the insurance company a few $$$ on the repair. When someting goes wrong the primary consideration is the pax on board - as far as I am concerned the insurance company owns the aircraft when things first go wrong - well before I hit the ground. Mind you the best way to save the pax is to land the aircraft in 1 piece. Besides with a 1.9m$ aircraft it is cheaper for the insurance company if four pax lives a saved if you write off the aircraft to achieve it.

W

[lomapaseo]

Let's not go too far with the idea that carbon blades shatter and lessen the damage effects.

The idea of the design is that they can resist shattering just as well as any other blade in a bird strike and of course strong enough to resist bending or twisting under centifugal loading and high thrust power.

When these things break off under power they have a nasty habit of spearing through fuselages and even exiting out the other side.

[barit1]

The hollow steel propeller on the CV-580 causes a lot more damage than a composite prop. Here (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=21426&key=0) is one that went into overspeed during descent, came apart, and cut the fuselage in two.

[av8boy]

To be fair, the Convair was felled by the penetration of the blade and the yaw loads which came along with the loss of the prop. Just taking a tiny little issue with saying the blade "cut the fuselage in two..." Of course, the end result was the same...

Here's the NTSB report: http://amelia.db.erau.edu/reports/ntsb/aar/AAR68-AC.pdf

--Dave

[barit1]

Dave, you're right, but the overspeed was inseperable from the yaw - it was the "stolen" airstream energy from the yaw that drive the prop into overspeed.

I once wrote a mini-thesis comparing this accident to this EMB-120 (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X16773&key=1) accident: remarkably similar initial single-point failures, with assumed "fail-safe" characteristics that had never been fully tested. :ugh:

[JamesT73J]

Are the blades carbon composite? It's possible that the fragments were very light, and may not have sufficient kinetic energy to penetrate a window or fuselage skin.


James

[27/09]

Flying Inverted,

You have not helped with the facts, your facts regarding the choice of landing place are completely wrong.

The aircraft DID land on the grass strip, that was one of the reasons it didn't land at Wellington

The aircraft most definitely did not land on the grass, it landed on the tarmac.

From what I have heard your information regarding the cause is close to the truth. I'm sure if you check with your source of that information they will confirm my statement regarding the aircraft landing on the tarmac.

If readers read the other thread on this in D & G you will find that the landing was done in accordance with Raytheons recommended procedures.