Twin hits runway with wheels up and then takes off!

[mickjoebill]

https://www.facebook.com/RCastle11/videos/10206548294656217/

The best thing you could say about this pilot is that he panicked.

Mickjoebill

[9 lives]

Oh my goodness!

Not completely lucky, but very lucky!

[onetrack]

Holy cow! Those bent props must have nearly shook him out of the cabin! The LH prop in particular, was chewing the ground for maybe 300 feet or more! :eek:
What in the world would possess a pilot to take off again, after bellying it??

[treadigraph]

According to the FAA (http://www.asias.faa.gov/pls/apex/f?p=100:95:0::NO::P95_EVENT_LCL_DATE,P95_LOC_CITY_NAME,P95_R EGIST_NBR:11-APR-15,FORT%20PIERCE,N7502S) it happened at Fort Pierce (doesn't look like St Lucy County to me) and the aircraft was flown back to Fort Lauderdale...

[Above The Clouds]

Ouch, that looks and sounds expensive. Was it a low flypast that went wrong or an actual forgot to lower the gear ? it seems to come over the runway and touch down quite fast for a normal landing, but then the film could be deceiving.

[phiggsbroadband]

He seemed to have run out of runway when he went around, the fuselage not having any braking action.
If he was lucky, the props might just have worn down by an equal amount, so they may have remained balanced... If...

[dsc810]

I noted how the FAA report said that the damage was "minor"!

[Jetblu]

Not the smartest move but I am pleased it worked out with minimum damage.

[Jhieminga]

Hmm, I cannot argue with the FAA factsheet but that doesn't look like Fort Pierce to me... Anyway, he definitively used up his luck for that day...:=

[fastjet45]

FAA report said that the damage was "minor"


Maybe actual minor physical damage, but costly. 2 new props, 2 shock loaded engines, fuselage repairs, increased insurance premiums :eek: and of course not forgetting damaged pride but other wise very lucky.

In a sense maybe not the right thing to do trying to go-around but then he was probably surprised by the sudden noise and reacted accordingly. That said the speed he was travelling along the runway with no braking available could have resulted in a very different outcome ploughing through the grass, hedge, trees and what ever else you meet along the way as you sit back and enjoy the ride as a passenger.

[AdamFrisch]

I think it might have scared him quite a bit after all…..

1970 Aerostar 601 Aircraft for sale - Aero Star Usa Ltd , FL - Trade-A-Plane Inventory ID 2076612 (http://www.trade-a-plane.com/detail/aircraft/Multi+Engine+Piston/1970/Aerostar/601/2076612.html)

Aerostar has no stall warner, so he must have been in the buffet all through that upwind. Not a nice place to be with this type. I was surprised it didn't fold as the stall speed is 77 with flaps.

[Jhieminga]

230 hrs SMOH... And only 0,5 hrs since shock loading them...
It probably needs new flaps and some paint as well... Oh and a new cover on the driver's seat, the old one is stained! ;)

[onetrack]

I like the cryptic, "needs props", and "rebuildable" At what cost?! I wonder, does the buyer also receive a copy of the belly landing video, so he knows where to check for damage? :rolleyes:
2297 TT since 1970 means she's been a bit of a hangar queen! Perhaps if the owner had put some more hours on her, he wouldn't have forgotten how to drive her! :)

[Heebicka]

picture is already out, winglet propellers


http://i.imgur.com/SOqMdcu.jpg

[fastjet45]

Heebicka
picture is already out, winglet propellers


Piper spent $00000 developing the Q tip prop for the high powered Cheyenne 3 and there we are its simple, just drag it down the runway :D:D:D at least now the gear is down in the picture.

[DaveReidUK]

that doesn't look like Fort Pierce to meThat's because it isn't. It's Aero Acres Airpark (FAA FD88).

[Pace]

Really a pretty stupid thing to have done attempting a go around after demolishing the props and this guy was very very lucky not to have killed himself by stalling in or at best landing off airfield into whatever ((

Having said that its a pretty dramatic video and a good eye opener to others not to attempt such a knee jerk reaction.

Gear up is what we all fear! In 3000 hours of piston twin time I nearly did the same once due to an over zealous other pilot in the right seat, very low cloud/vis and declaring I was going to miss.

He retracted the gear just as the runway came back into view and forgot to tell me :( I was so looking out of the plane that I failed to notice till the flair and went around without any contact.

Had there been contact there is no way I would have attempted his stunt

Pace

[Cough]

Glad its never, ever happened in Blighty...:\ Errm....

[Simon T]

Glad its never, ever happened in Blighty...:\ Errm....

My have saved his life, just before the power is added the A/C appears to slew to the left, its not possible to see from the video but if the the line of parked A/C went to the end of the airfield he was likely to hit one of he had stayed on the ground?

Simon

[fatmanmedia]

dumb, simply dumb.

Fats

[Pace]

My have saved his life, just before the power is added the A/C appears to slew to the left, its not possible to see from the video but if the the line of parked A/C went to the end of the airfield he was likely to hit one of he had stayed on the ground?


Simon

I hope you are not advocating attempting to go around with badly damaged props after a runway prop strike?

Far better to take his chance on a runway which is clear of obstacles than attempting to take to the air with a more than likely stall/spin or an under control crash into trees.

I saw a Cessna push pull aircraft with gear problems land on its belly at Gloucester. The pilot did a perfect job burning off fuel and then cutting both engines at 30 feet before making a smooth belly landing onto the runway.

to advocate going around in this situation is complete madness and extremely bad airmanship on his part he was very very lucky to get away with it

Pace

[treadigraph]

And to then fly 100 odd miles down the coast past six or seven large airfields... Glad I wasn't aboard.

[Loggerheads]

to advocate going around in this situation is complete madness and extremely bad airmanship on his part he was very very lucky to get away with it

Wholeheartedly agree, Pace.

Far better to take his chance on a runway which is clear of obstacles than attempting to take to the air with a more than likely stall/spin or an under control crash into trees.

An sound argument that could be made prior to knowing the outcome.

Far better to take his chance on a runway which is clear of obstacles than attempting to take to the air with a more than likely stall/spin or an under control crash into trees.

With the benefit of hindsight there is no argument for this being the case.


The rights and wrongs in aviation help keep it interesting. Irrespective of the stupidity of any action I find it difficult to say a different choice was the correct one where the outcome could not have been better than with the choice made.

[Andy_P]

The aircraft is now for sale!

I read an ATSB report of a plane here in Australia that did a wheels-up approach. The Pilot figured out something was wrong when the wheels failed to make contact, and executed a go around. Only damage was a broken antenna on the bottom of the aircraft. Very very luck pilot.

Investigation: AO-2015-008 - Wheels-up approach and go-around involving PA-31-350, VH-TXK, at Townsville Airport, Queensland, 9 January 2015 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2015/aair/ao-2015-008.aspx)

[Pace]

The rights and wrongs in aviation help keep it interesting. Irrespective of the stupidity of any action I find it difficult to say a different choice was the correct one where the outcome could not have been better than with the choice made.

All you can say was he was extremely lucky the Gods were looking after him It was not a correct decision to take or an action I would recommend to another pilot.

He had no idea of the extent of damage to the props or the thrust they would generate.

the aircraft was right on the edge of stalling at one point. He was lucky it wasn't a windy day and a down draught didn't catch him.

My concern is trying to justify this action to other pilots who probably won't have such a kind God looking over them if they followed such an action as in any laws of airmanship it was a crazy choice to make I hope he thanked that God for letting him get away with it because thats all it was! Getting away with it and a huge helping of luck.

[9 lives]

Though not at all defending nor recommending what the Aerostar pilot did I can stretch my mind to the point where he realized the error much earlier than might appear, and initiated the go around, then the plane settled on, and most of the damage occured, as it began to accelerate.

I cannot advocate a prolonged flight following such an abnormal event, but I can see the wisdom in flying to the next suitable airport to handle the aircraft once on the ground. There are aircraft which have been sadly written off, simply because the location of the minor event made it major.

But, in the end, I think that we'd all agree that assuring the configuration is the best of all....

[Simon T]

Simon

I hope you are not advocating attempting to go around with badly damaged props after a runway prop strike?

Far better to take his chance on a runway which is clear of obstacles than attempting to take to the air with a more than likely stall/spin or an under control crash into trees.

I saw a Cessna push pull aircraft with gear problems land on its belly at Gloucester. The pilot did a perfect job burning off fuel and then cutting both engines at 30 feet before making a smooth belly landing onto the runway.

to advocate going around in this situation is complete madness and extremely bad airmanship on his part he was very very lucky to get away with it

Pace

Hi,

I cannot see from my post that I advocated anything, rather that I asked a question (the clue is the sign at the end of the sentence).

From the limited data available, i.e. the video who can say if he made the right call or not?

If he had crashed into a line of parked aircraft would the right decision still have been not to go around? (note the sign at the end of the sentence)

[Loggerheads]

Pace, I agree with what you say, there is no justification before the event, however....

We know he was lucky, that he could not have had a better outcome re lack of injury, however we don't know what would have happened had he not taken off again. Therefore there is no argument to support it being the wrong decision in this specific case. Since the outcome could not have been better there is compelling evidence it was the right decision, even if a one of.

Now if you listen to his comments it opens up a different argument.

link (http://www.wpbf.com/news/exclusive-plane-skids-takes-off-without-landing-gear/32514186)

At 85 I very much think his flying days are over.

[Jetblu]

In all honesty, there is no argument to be had one way or another.

The fact of the matter is ; at the point of the propellers striking the runway, the gear clearly was not down. Whether the gear had been down previously and then retracted, we do not know. It's called 'accident' and 'being human'.

Age does not even come into it. I have seen a few 20 and 30 something s do exactly the same. He is still here to tell the tale, which is what counts. :ok:

[TCAS FAN]

The story takes me back to Liberia in the early 70s with I watched an army Air Recon Unit officer flying circuits in a Cessna 337 who forgot to put the gear down, slid along the runway on the under fuselage panier, power on, flew another circuit, landed (with wheels), taxied in and parked up for the night. The aircraft then flew the next day in the same condition which it landed.

[ahdguy]

Quoted from wpbf.com
"Georgaklis said he was flying to visit friends on the Treasure Coast, and when he attempted to land his plane, something went wrong. He said just one thing went through his mind."I said, 'We've got to get out of here,'" Georgaklis said.

Georgaklis said he's been flying for almost 50 years, and he hopped in his Aerostar for a routine flight to Aero Acres in Fort Pierce with his dog, Buddy, on April 11.Georgaklis said it's an annual trip, but he approached the runway too fast.
"The gear was down, and I saw that I was going a little faster than I liked, because you have to stop quickly," Georgaklis said.


That's when Georgaklis said he raised the gear and skidded across the runway.
Georgaklis said flight controllers told him there were no parts to fix the plane.
"I thought about it, and I said, 'Forget it. Let's go back home,'" Georgaklis said.
Georgaklis said neither he nor his dog was injured. He flew to the Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport, where he landed safely"

[Jetblu]

Don't worry adhguy, all commanders get it wrong from time to time.

I saw one commander of a country once state that we were going to war to
combat weapons of mass destruction and he wasn't no 85, although he did have
a 'buddy'.

[Pace]

I wonder what the FAA will do with him? My guess they will pull his licence not for landing gear up but for flying the aircraft 100 miles with known bent props and the risk to those on the ground!
The vibration and lack of thrust from the props must have been terrible.

Felt a bit sorry for him in that video as for 85 he looked in good nick and obviously loved his flying. His hand flying ability must have been good to coax that aircraft up to a cruise altitude without stalling/spinning

Its hard to tell in the video but maybe he did as he said have the gear down but was too fast, elected to go around! raised the gear too soon before getting a positive rate on the VSI and altimeter and descended onto the runway making contact ? but still in a mental go around mode.

How the heck do you live something like that down? Think I would want to crawl under a bush

Pace

[Tinstaafl]

Would anyone trust those engines & their crankshafts again, even after a post-strike teardown & rebuild?

[TowerDog]

No, props and engines are toast.
Doing a belly go-around is a horrible lack of judgment.:sad:

[9 lives]

The prop blades are scrap - no repair of the blades would be possible. Perhaps hubs can be returned to service.

The crankshafts would require an MPI inspection, and dial check of the prop flange, but might be okay. I certainly would not discard the engines because of what happened to them, if the specified inspections showed no defect. Even if the crank(s) did not pass, they can be replaced at engine rebuild.

There are specified prop strike inspections for a reason. If all of the inspected items pass, the engine is airworthy. I worked in an engine shop for years, and saw engines come in with worse prop strikes than that, and they were found to be undamaged following the specified inspection.

That prop damage was gradual, even, and symmetrical. I would not rush to judgement. Same for the airframe - I expect that it will not be scrapped, unless there is difficulty obtaining the needed repair parts.

[TowerDog]

. There are specified prop strike inspections for a reason.

The reason is probably in anticipation of a gear up landing with idle power, or striking a baggage cart when taxing at low power.
I doubt, but of course could be wrong, that anybody, even in their wildest fantasies expected a Full Power, Gear Up Go Around with the props banging into the pavement for an extended period of time. And if so, an inspection would be suffice to to go fly again.
There could be vibrations and cracks or other hidden damage making these motors useless, dangerous and worthless :sad:

[Pace]

The vibration flying it for 100 NM would 100% been atrocious! I had a chunk of ice come off a seneca once when the three cables to the anti ice sheared and I was left with no anti ice on the one side.

It was 1 in a million but the ice chunk was thrown forward and came back hitting the three blade counter rotating prop on the other side very slightly bending the tip.

The vibration to landing was noticeable although not severe. This would be something else.

A friend flew with a bent prop and the vibration damaged the sensitive electronics causing no end of avionic problems ahead

Pace

[9 lives]

There could be vibrations and cracks or other hidden damage making these motors useless, dangerous and worthless :sad:

Indeed, the engines could well have been damaged to the point of being useless. There are two possible courses of action following an event like this: Scrap the engines, and render them permanently unusable, or have them completely inspected in accordance with the engine manufacturer's instructions for a prop strike or sudden stoppage, and possibly scrap them.

Following a complete inspection for a prop strike, there would be no damage which would remain hidden. If a crankshaft were found to be cracked, it could be replaced - would you want to own an engine which could not be so repaired?

Though I won't extend to agreeing with what the pilot did by flying a great distance with known damaged engines, it is possible that by doing this, he saved the plane from being scrapped. If he felt that the aircraft could not be safely flown, or vibration was intolerable, he could always come back around, and land it....