QF Q400 Crew Forget Landing Gear
Originally Posted by noclue
Why can a gear down ferry be done up to a max of FL200 then?
Originally Posted by Uplinker
It has been many many years since I flew the Q400, so I cannot remember if there is an after take-off checklist?
Unbelievable that you would not know about the A/TO checklist.
Whatever the circumstances and side issues, the report has offered up a new word - at least for me.
Quote:
"... they probably conducted the after-take-off checklist with a high degree of automaticity,"
I must try and work that into a conversation - once I can manage to pronounce it correctly.
BTW The gliding world has many historical instances of undercarriage stuff-ups. It became an issue when a whole generation of pilots learnt to fly in gliders with a fixed undercarriage, but then in the 1970s when the higher performance fiberglass types arrived with a retractable wheel, the old way of doing things (or perhaps rather not doing things) still remained deep in the subconscious. Forgetting to put the wheel down for landing became the new trap. Then there were those who were in the air for longer flights, but forgot to retract the wheel after launch, and then mechanically operated the lever during the in circuit pre-landing checks thus retracting the wheel and landing on the aircraft's nicely polished belly - usually only with mild abrasions to the aircraft, but always with acute embarrassment for the pilot. The standard penalty was to shout a complete round of drinks at the bar when ops concluded. Micro switches and warning buzzers were installed to warn the operator of serious oversight and potential embarrassment when the dive brakes were opened with the wheel still retracted, but the more ingenious types still found ways to ignore or overlook the warning (what the hell is that strange noise??). I was once showing a visiting government VIP around the field when one of our most experienced pilots performed this astonishing feat right there in front of us. Since I had been building up the qualities of the pilot - one of our best - and all the exciting features of the borrowed aircraft - new, shiny and expensive - to our visitor, I also shared in the acute embarrassment of the pilot as I did my best to explain this quite unusual variation from standard landing procedure to our visitor
.
Quote:
"... they probably conducted the after-take-off checklist with a high degree of automaticity,"
I must try and work that into a conversation - once I can manage to pronounce it correctly.
BTW The gliding world has many historical instances of undercarriage stuff-ups. It became an issue when a whole generation of pilots learnt to fly in gliders with a fixed undercarriage, but then in the 1970s when the higher performance fiberglass types arrived with a retractable wheel, the old way of doing things (or perhaps rather not doing things) still remained deep in the subconscious. Forgetting to put the wheel down for landing became the new trap. Then there were those who were in the air for longer flights, but forgot to retract the wheel after launch, and then mechanically operated the lever during the in circuit pre-landing checks thus retracting the wheel and landing on the aircraft's nicely polished belly - usually only with mild abrasions to the aircraft, but always with acute embarrassment for the pilot. The standard penalty was to shout a complete round of drinks at the bar when ops concluded. Micro switches and warning buzzers were installed to warn the operator of serious oversight and potential embarrassment when the dive brakes were opened with the wheel still retracted, but the more ingenious types still found ways to ignore or overlook the warning (what the hell is that strange noise??). I was once showing a visiting government VIP around the field when one of our most experienced pilots performed this astonishing feat right there in front of us. Since I had been building up the qualities of the pilot - one of our best - and all the exciting features of the borrowed aircraft - new, shiny and expensive - to our visitor, I also shared in the acute embarrassment of the pilot as I did my best to explain this quite unusual variation from standard landing procedure to our visitor
.Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: In a pipe in the upstairs water closet
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I agree with Full Opposite. How many of us have forgotten stuff like retracting flaps?
I have done a few gear down ferries in the Q400 and the subsequent buffet is definately noticeable. How the crew seemingly missed this is a bit perplexing.
Last edited by Fuel-Off; 24th Mar 2022 at 12:45.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Brisbane, Qld, Australia
Age: 76
Posts: 1,408
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes
on
4 Posts
Any ideas on why the altitude limitation?
The Canadair engineer indicated that altitude limits such as this one was the result of flight testing.
It was simply the highest altitude that the aircraft was flown at with the gear down during flight testing.
Professional Student
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: My Secret Island Lair
Posts: 564
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank Borman (test pilot, engineer, astronaut, commander of the first lunar orbital mission) relates his autobiography that he once forgot to raise the gear on a test flight. And only noticed some time into the flight.
If it can happen to him, it can happen to anyone!
(Granted, only one pair of eyes in the cockpit, but still)
If it can happen to him, it can happen to anyone!
(Granted, only one pair of eyes in the cockpit, but still)
Most of these “oddball” limitations are simply there because that’s the limit to which they were light tested for certification.
15,000 ft for one thing or another appears in quite a few places in different aircraft. I have long suspected it’s because La Paz in Bolivia is at 13,500(ish) which brings one to 15,000 if you’re mooching around the circuit at 1500 AGL. But, as always, happy to be corrected.
(As an aside, SLLP is a tricky place for some O2 systems.)
15,000 ft for one thing or another appears in quite a few places in different aircraft. I have long suspected it’s because La Paz in Bolivia is at 13,500(ish) which brings one to 15,000 if you’re mooching around the circuit at 1500 AGL. But, as always, happy to be corrected.
(As an aside, SLLP is a tricky place for some O2 systems.)
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Great South East, tired and retired
Posts: 4,095
Likes: 0
Received 31 Likes
on
20 Posts
Oh, Leady, everybody knows that the higher you go, the thicker the air gets. That's why the planes that fly fast and high have to really pointy, but those down lower in the thinner air can be big and blunt.
And the higher you get, the more trouble the light has getting through, so it looks darker - and space is just black.
Rockets need to be pointy to get through that thick air, the failures just bounce off it and fall down again.
And it's true, I read it on the internet.
And the higher you get, the more trouble the light has getting through, so it looks darker - and space is just black.
Rockets need to be pointy to get through that thick air, the failures just bounce off it and fall down again.
And it's true, I read it on the internet.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Mycenae
Posts: 494
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by hobbit1983
Frank Borman (test pilot, engineer, astronaut, commander of the first lunar orbital mission) relates his autobiography that he once forgot to raise the gear on a test flight. And only noticed some time into the flight.
If it can happen to him, it can happen to anyone!
(Granted, only one pair of eyes in the cockpit, but still)
If it can happen to him, it can happen to anyone!
(Granted, only one pair of eyes in the cockpit, but still)
This thread encapsulates everything that’s wrong with aviation in Oz. For the love of god, everyone of us has done something dumb at some point in our careers. It’s not a case of if but when. Someone left the gear down, were told about it and put the gear up. Yet here we are with a two page thread and ensuing debate about it.
The 'debate' is mostly a discussion is about why the limitation exists. It appears that it exists merely because the manufacturer didn't see a need to do any flight testing with the gear extended above - pick a number - 10,000'. A mundane and reasonable explanation.
I don't see too much criticism of the crew.
Relax.
I don't see too much criticism of the crew.
Relax.
