Gear Up or Gear Down

[salmabambi]

Hi to all .... any thoughts on the following ? .

I have flown and owned a number of types of so called " Complex " aircraft including singles and twins and have always believed that in a REAL forced landing the gear is to be left UP when putting down in a field.

Naturally this will not apply if landing on a runway of any sort .... roads ... known fields .. etc etc.

So for arguments sake .... we have an engine failure and are looking to land in a field .. green or standing crop .... what are your thoughts on the gear possition ????.

I seem to get conflicting views when on check / validation flights with examiners or instructors when undertaking PFL's, who either argue that gear down can flip the aircraft if the surface turns out to be soft and if landing gear is left up then the landing shock is transfered directly to your back through the airframe.

Thanks guys for your thoughts :ok:

[goldeneaglepilot]

Over the years I have heard many arguments for and against the gear being up or down. The only times I would consider gear up is into standing crop (taller than two feet) or water. The deceleration in a standing crop is incredible and will rip the gear off. Into water it makes the ditching harder to do without hurting yourself when ditching (again from the deceleration caused by the drag of the landing gear). If you have hit your head due to the deceleration of the water or a crop then you might never get out of the aircraft through drowning or fire.

If the surface is rough, a leg (nose leg normally) might collapse, but at least it's getting rid of energy and will hopefully contribute to an incident that leaves you alive rather than dead. I don’t care too much about the aircraft being a write off if the field is so rough that you would never normally land there, the incident leading up to you being at that point would be serious enough to make it a question of survival.

With the gear down on a rough field you reduce the chance of splitting a fuel tank, that on its own is worth considering, its unlikely your going to have immediate fire fighting response in such a field.

[Pilot DAR]

I don't think there's a wrong answer to this (meaning I don't think you'd fail a proficiency check, unless your choice violated a company policy). My personal choice would tend toward gear up, unless I anticipated something like a "normal" rollout at the end.

I agree that extended gear will absorb energy, and that's a good thing. But, if the landing is going to be otherwise controlled, with an expectation of not having the sudden stop along the way, friction with the ground could dissipate energy every bit as well. It is going to cost an engine(s) and prop(s) though.

Self and passenger preservation first! After that, the less damage to the plane, the happier someone will be. If the gear is up, probably it, it's systems and attaching structure, and local internal areas, will receive little damage. That could be a factor in a possible repair later.

I think about this often, while I'm flying single retractables, and watching the forced landing areas go under me. The amphibian I fly actually goes a little faster with the wheels down than up, so over land, I fly it that way. Once I cross to territory where a normal rollout is not going to happen, I retract the wheels, so they're where I want them if the engine stops.

The prospect of gear down in a soft surface flipping the plane, is a small factor in my decision making, though not a major factor, unless it's a taildragger retractable. I'm more concerned with it hooking something solid, and causing a more sudden stop, or change in direction, than would otherwise have occurred.

No wrong answer for me, The pilots who have done it, would be the best to offer opinions....

[jollyrog]

An instructor told me once; the moment the engine stops, the aeroplane doesn't belong to you any more. It belongs to the insurance company.

Engine and prop damage therefore shouldn't be a consideration.

[Pace]

The deceleration in a standing crop is incredible and will rip the gear off.

Been there! done that worn the badge into standing wheat crops with the gear down. Fact is I didnt get the choice as the aircraft was fixed U/C and a single soon after I got my PPL many moons back.

Wish the 2 foot tall wheat had slowed the aircraft as I might not have hit the far hedge.
My Passenger decided to panic 20 feet up to a perfect approach opened the door and tried to jump out!

Me thinks he will break his neck so I ended up hanging onto his jumper half way out on the wing with the aircraft merrily bouncing down the field with nobody at the controls.

I let him go got back to the controls and sadly demolished the far hedge which equally sadly held a chopped off tree stump which sliced through the wing.

So I wish you were rights about wheat :{

Unless into water or you cannot get it down I would have the gear down everytime.

Pace

[Mark 1]

I've been into tall ripe barley in July, and although the deceleration was rapid, the tailwheel stayed on the ground and the aircraft was undamaged.

However, I know of one excursion into oil-seed rape adjacent to a runway where the undercarriage stopped and the rest of the aircraft kept going.

Glider pilots are more savvy on this subject. I've seen somewhere a presentation on recognizing suitable fields at different times of year, so you can pick the right field before you're comitted to it.

[mad_jock]

Even if you do rip the gear off that has just got rid of so much energy from the aircraft. Same if you do drop the aircraft onto them and they punch up through the wings it decreases the decelleration and uses energy up.

The best example of this is the 777 at LHR yep aircraft knackard but everyone walked away.

[goldeneaglepilot]

I did think U/C down into tall crop was best - until I saw two guys lifted by air ambulance from a crash in a Piper Arrow, they put the gear down when landing into crop after an engine faliure, the aircraft travelled no more than two hundred meters. The aircraft was intact - except for the damage to the nose leg, which collapsed, the AAIB blamed the leg collapse on the standing crop. They both suffered serious facial and head injuries from their heads hitting the instrument panel following the rapid deceleration. It changed my mind as to what was best

[eharding]

SOP in the YAK-52 is gear UP in the event of a forced landing.

It does have rather longer gear than most SEP types though, but the thinking is that you'll have more chance of finishing the right way up with the gear retracted than extended.

The fact that the wheels will still make contact with the ground first when retracted is rather more a feature to minimise damage when Young Boris made a perfect landing on the runway having neglected to extend the gear in the normal course of things - and swaps his career as a budding fighter pilot for one of a salt miner - than to help in a genuine forced landing.

The aircraft was intact but they both suffered serious facial and head injuries from their heads hitting the instrument panel following the rapid deceleration. It changed my mind as to what was best

I suspect that has more to do with the eternal debate about head protection than the gear up/down question - as well as the debate about the merits of various harness types.

[Pace]

until I saw two guys lifted by air ambulance from a crash in a Piper Arrow

I repeat I have landed into 2 feet of wheat in a PA28 with wheel covers.
Very unimpressed with the deceleration :E

Pace

[mad_jock]

And also the fact that your standard 3 point belts as fitted to most club machines are just slightly better than useless.

[eharding]

And also the fact that your standard 3 point belts as fitted to most club machines are just slightly better than useless.

Exactly.

Martin Baker can obviously keep a very accurate tally of the number of lives saved by their seats, not so easy for a company like Hooker Harness, but I'd wager HH have saved more lives than MB. Only a fiver, mind you.

[Tay Cough]

What sort of tie do you get for being saved by a Hooker? :eek:

[mad_jock]

I believe hooker harness is a special yak pilots harness which supports them while eating the all you can eat lunch time special. It saves them doing a Mr Ceosote while finishing things off with a large slice of apple pie with cream and icecream. ;)

‪Mr Creosote (Monty Python)‬‏ - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlK62rjQWLk&feature=youtu.be)

[dirkdj]

Suppose you can't get the gear down and you have a choice between a hard runway and the grass next to it.

[172driver]

Suppose you can't get the gear down and you have a choice between a hard runway and the grass next to it.

That's been discussed on here a while back. IIRC the consensus was to go for the hard rwy, as the risk of snagging something was lower than in the grass.

On the gear down vs gear up debate, I would leave the gear up unless I was certain (as certain as one can be in these circumstances) that the surface I was going to land on was reasonably hard and flat. The type I fly (C172RG) seems to be able to slide quite nicely on its belly, but apparently loves to flip over if the nose wheel gets caught somewhere. Time and presence of mind permitting I would also try to get the prop in a horizontal position.

[rustyflyer]

How about soft-field technique? Keep the nose up to help prevent it digging in.
Surely that would help, gear up or down (fixed)?
People who avoid grass might not think of this one...

[172driver]

How about soft-field technique? Keep the nose up to help prevent it digging in.

Sure. But:
- at some point the nose has to come down
- landing in some uneven field you may have less control then you'd want (think bouncing along)

Also, don't forget we are talking REAL forced landings here. Your mastery of technique may well be somewhat compromised.... :E

[Nomendum]

Ever landed in a corn field, goldeneagle pilot - another club pilot and I did just that, two weeks ago, in C152.

A mile off the runway, only at 600 feet, (the engine was already showing subtle signs of distress). The crop was about three feet high, we flared in the top of the crop and were down in about 100 metres. Deceleration was about the same as in a commercial jet, at reverse thrust after landing. The bending of the corn stalks slowed us smoothly and progressively.

Aircraft was completely undamaged, as were we.

Helped that there was two of us - pilot flying was committing himself to landing ahead, whilst doing all the emergency checks -fortunately, I spotted the the three lines of power lines in the way and also to see a better field to our right, which he changed direction to and straight away was flaring for the landing.

If you're at 300 feet, never mind trying to get the engine going, etc, look out for wires, cables, etc. - much more critical!

As for "rough fields" - corn fields are great - because they are large, so the large machines can harvest most efficiently, there is much less chance of hidden ditches or fences across across the middle, to catch you out and trip you up. Also, as the ground was tilled months in advance, the top surface will be compacted, for a smooth, firm surface.

Better still, a harvested corn field, still compacted, but just stubble.

Cow pasture - again firm surface, but hopefully no cows.