Trainee pilot lands plane without wheel
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sure Its very constructive to tear a strip off someone who has walked away from an accident! Some valid points have been made about touch down technique though but these should be relayed constructively because aggressive criticism will have a hugely counter productive effect IMHO.
On some check flights I have noted a few pilots not being able to consistently land in the right place at the right speed, and on the centre line, particularly in crosswind conditions. It seems to me those students who have perfected the discipline of landing consistently on the centre line even in crosswinds will be very well equipped in handling this type of emergency.
On some check flights I have noted a few pilots not being able to consistently land in the right place at the right speed, and on the centre line, particularly in crosswind conditions. It seems to me those students who have perfected the discipline of landing consistently on the centre line even in crosswinds will be very well equipped in handling this type of emergency.
Now all the PPL's who fly similar hardware have a good think about what you would do in similar circumstances.
I will throw some ideas out.
Engine off for the landing.
Forced landing glide approach
Yes, and probably before I started the round out because I think I would have enough to think about during the landing, and would want a few seconds to adjust to the handling without power.
Oddly, many of my best landings have been from glide approaches, so I would consider this after I was absolutely sure that I would make the runway.
Fast approach
Slow approach
Flat appoarch and a drive on at above stalling speed.
Land on the stall nose high.
Theoretically I would want to land with a minimal rate of descent at touchdown, possibly with the starboard wing somewhat raised.
I could understand why someone may not want to land at absolute minimum speed, as this risks stalling in from a foot or two over the runway. This may be enough to ram the damaged leg into the ground, snatching and causing a ground-loop. I had wondered whether this was the concern that led the pilot to land flatter than he might normally have done.
To be honest, I think I would try not to do anything too clever. Most of my landings on a PA28 were fairly smooth (much better than my landings on a C152) and to me, trying to do something new sounds like asking for trouble. After touchdown I would try and maintain the horizon horizontal by gradually turning the wheel to the port, and I would try to get the nosewheel on the ground before the damaged wheel. But I think that as a relatively low airtime pilot I would do better trying to do something normal, well, than trying to do something theoretically better but outside my capabilities.
I would use all 3 stages of flap (not certain whether the pilot in question did so or not) because though I worry the flaps may catch on the ground and get damaged - possibly causing severe damage to the aircraft - the landing speed could be so much lower that the risk of a catastrophic accident with serious injury etc. would be lower.
Burn fuel off or not.
run a tank empty or not.
I liked the suggestion about burning fuel off just from the starboard tank. Partly because I know how tired I can get after 4 hours in the air, and partly because that's the side without undercarriage, partly because this would lighten the wing and make it easier to hold off, and lastly because that's the side where the door is and I would prefer not to have a fire there!
Another consideration is that the gauges on the tanks aren't terribly reliable and I would rather burn off one tank completely but still retain a fair amount of fuel in the other, than aim to land with minimal fuel.
What control inputs would you expect.
What problems would you have faced getting out afterwards if the AFS wasn't waiting.
Land on tarmac or grass?
Plenty of time to divert to a big airport with a well equipped fire service, but may not offer the option of grass. Even if it did, I think I would prefer tarmac, and I would try to land on the port side of the runway so that if the plane swung to starboard it would have further to slide. On grass I would worry about the gear catching and flipping the aircraft onto its back.
I did wonder whether flying at a higher altitude to burn off fuel would be more or less fatiguing than flying at a lower level. 10,000 feet with the window open could be more bearable in terms of temperature than flying lower, but has other drawbacks. I don't have enough experience to know where the balance lies.
I would talk thoroughly to people on the ground prior to landing, but would ask for silence during the approach and landing. I once crashed a hang glider because I listened to my instructor telling me to perform S-turns which in retrospect really weren't necessary. I also once nearly flew into the hillside, and talking to people who had watched from the ground, it was interesting to see how different their impressions about what had happened were, and what their assumptions about my thought processes had been.
So there we go... Comments appreciated.
I will throw some ideas out.
Engine off for the landing.
Forced landing glide approach
Yes, and probably before I started the round out because I think I would have enough to think about during the landing, and would want a few seconds to adjust to the handling without power.
Oddly, many of my best landings have been from glide approaches, so I would consider this after I was absolutely sure that I would make the runway.
Fast approach
Slow approach
Flat appoarch and a drive on at above stalling speed.
Land on the stall nose high.
Theoretically I would want to land with a minimal rate of descent at touchdown, possibly with the starboard wing somewhat raised.
I could understand why someone may not want to land at absolute minimum speed, as this risks stalling in from a foot or two over the runway. This may be enough to ram the damaged leg into the ground, snatching and causing a ground-loop. I had wondered whether this was the concern that led the pilot to land flatter than he might normally have done.
To be honest, I think I would try not to do anything too clever. Most of my landings on a PA28 were fairly smooth (much better than my landings on a C152) and to me, trying to do something new sounds like asking for trouble. After touchdown I would try and maintain the horizon horizontal by gradually turning the wheel to the port, and I would try to get the nosewheel on the ground before the damaged wheel. But I think that as a relatively low airtime pilot I would do better trying to do something normal, well, than trying to do something theoretically better but outside my capabilities.
I would use all 3 stages of flap (not certain whether the pilot in question did so or not) because though I worry the flaps may catch on the ground and get damaged - possibly causing severe damage to the aircraft - the landing speed could be so much lower that the risk of a catastrophic accident with serious injury etc. would be lower.
Burn fuel off or not.
run a tank empty or not.
I liked the suggestion about burning fuel off just from the starboard tank. Partly because I know how tired I can get after 4 hours in the air, and partly because that's the side without undercarriage, partly because this would lighten the wing and make it easier to hold off, and lastly because that's the side where the door is and I would prefer not to have a fire there!
Another consideration is that the gauges on the tanks aren't terribly reliable and I would rather burn off one tank completely but still retain a fair amount of fuel in the other, than aim to land with minimal fuel.
What control inputs would you expect.
What problems would you have faced getting out afterwards if the AFS wasn't waiting.
Land on tarmac or grass?
Plenty of time to divert to a big airport with a well equipped fire service, but may not offer the option of grass. Even if it did, I think I would prefer tarmac, and I would try to land on the port side of the runway so that if the plane swung to starboard it would have further to slide. On grass I would worry about the gear catching and flipping the aircraft onto its back.
I did wonder whether flying at a higher altitude to burn off fuel would be more or less fatiguing than flying at a lower level. 10,000 feet with the window open could be more bearable in terms of temperature than flying lower, but has other drawbacks. I don't have enough experience to know where the balance lies.
I would talk thoroughly to people on the ground prior to landing, but would ask for silence during the approach and landing. I once crashed a hang glider because I listened to my instructor telling me to perform S-turns which in retrospect really weren't necessary. I also once nearly flew into the hillside, and talking to people who had watched from the ground, it was interesting to see how different their impressions about what had happened were, and what their assumptions about my thought processes had been.
So there we go... Comments appreciated.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Wales
Posts: 532
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi abgd, there was one more factor that you missed... Land on tarmac or land on concrete. As it would be impossible to bury the leg in concrete, I would go for that option. (but maybe more sparks?)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Londonish
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am of the understanding that the hard/grass debate is pretty much a no-brainer: I.e. hard every time, largely because you can slide on it. I'd also throw in the consideration that every grass strip i've landed on has been somewhat bumpy, and that the grass around the runway probably isn't maintained as a strip.
WRT sparking, most of a PA28 is aluminium. That doesn't spark when you put a grinder to it, so I can't see why it would spark on a runway. Granted there are some components that might.
Altitude wise, yes(ish!) Only time I chose to fly on a 40deg day in that part of the world it was +20 at 9500, and turbulent through 8000.
Silence - you could always turn the radio (and the rest of the avionics) off, justified on the grounds of reducing the fire risk
I've already given my prescription, but basically I reckon keep everything as 'normal' as possible about the arrival - less chance of messing it up, who cares about the damage-on the ground stuff like stopping the prop. If you normally fly a flapped, powered approach, doing a flapless glide is likely to result in a worse arrival. Overall I think a little too much is made of it - so long as it gets flown on in reasonable shape, under control, and doesn't have anything to hit, it should only be scary for the insurance company, rather than a 'thank god everyone survived'.. but maybe I'm wrong - they did see fit to stick up a restricted area, fly around for 4hrs, etc.
WRT sparking, most of a PA28 is aluminium. That doesn't spark when you put a grinder to it, so I can't see why it would spark on a runway. Granted there are some components that might.
Altitude wise, yes(ish!) Only time I chose to fly on a 40deg day in that part of the world it was +20 at 9500, and turbulent through 8000.
Silence - you could always turn the radio (and the rest of the avionics) off, justified on the grounds of reducing the fire risk
I've already given my prescription, but basically I reckon keep everything as 'normal' as possible about the arrival - less chance of messing it up, who cares about the damage-on the ground stuff like stopping the prop. If you normally fly a flapped, powered approach, doing a flapless glide is likely to result in a worse arrival. Overall I think a little too much is made of it - so long as it gets flown on in reasonable shape, under control, and doesn't have anything to hit, it should only be scary for the insurance company, rather than a 'thank god everyone survived'.. but maybe I'm wrong - they did see fit to stick up a restricted area, fly around for 4hrs, etc.
Last edited by Mark1234; 10th Jan 2013 at 11:59.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Central London
Age: 41
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone know anything about the recent incident at Stapleford where a 172RG had to land without its nose gear deploying? I heard about it second hand but I gather fire brigade and paramedics were called, though thankfully not required. Not sure if its been reported yet. Happened in mid December.
I remember thinking when I heard about it, why didn't they divert to EGSX which is about 5nm away and has 2000m of tarmac? Hence wondering if there was a preference for landing on grass in these situations.
I remember thinking when I heard about it, why didn't they divert to EGSX which is about 5nm away and has 2000m of tarmac? Hence wondering if there was a preference for landing on grass in these situations.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SoCal
Posts: 1,929
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hence wondering if there was a preference for landing on grass in these situations.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ideally with engine off and prop positioned horizontally.
So although stopping the prop sounds nice in theory, in practice it's not going to work in such a scenario. The maneuvers required are too complex, especially if you've never done this before. And then you're faced with the challenge of making an engine-off approach and landing.
Furthermore, due to the aerodynamic forces the prop will stop at the position where it is building up compression in one of the cylinders. On a four-cylinder engine this means that the prop will stop at exactly the same orientation every time (plus or minus a few degrees). If it stops vertically, then you can blip the starter or try anything else, but next time it will stop vertically again. Only on a six-cylinder would you have a chance that the prop would get a different orientation at the next try.
Personally I'd make a normal, powered approach and pull the mixture just before or in the flare. Anything more than that is just greatly increasing the risk of a bad outcome.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,443
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Six pages of mostly Bo*llocks before we get to a sensible summation of what to do in this scenario.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the compliment.
However, in the back of my mind I cannot not get rid of that picture, made somewhere in the '60s, of a light aircraft (maybe a P28R) with a gear problem. They flew at low speed over the runway, with a pickup truck speeding underneath, and somebody reaching up from the back and pulling the wheel out.
How long would it take an engineer to reattach the PA28 wheel that had fallen off? He had four hours of fuel. That's maybe 40 passes over the runway. If you do it properly you could have about one hour of effective working time. Would that be enough?
Just trying to get the Bo*llocks back on track. It's been a good laugh so far.
However, in the back of my mind I cannot not get rid of that picture, made somewhere in the '60s, of a light aircraft (maybe a P28R) with a gear problem. They flew at low speed over the runway, with a pickup truck speeding underneath, and somebody reaching up from the back and pulling the wheel out.
How long would it take an engineer to reattach the PA28 wheel that had fallen off? He had four hours of fuel. That's maybe 40 passes over the runway. If you do it properly you could have about one hour of effective working time. Would that be enough?
Just trying to get the Bo*llocks back on track. It's been a good laugh so far.
Last edited by BackPacker; 10th Jan 2013 at 19:22.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vienna
Age: 50
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mean that one?
Not sure though if the overall risk, especially for bodily harm, isn't much greater with this approach. (Even though the risk for PPRuNe criticism concerning airplane handling is probably much smaller.)
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Amsterdam
Posts: 4,598
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, that's the one.
BTW to what extent do you need to worry about static electricity in such a scenario? I know this is a big issue with helicopters doing winching and such.
BTW to what extent do you need to worry about static electricity in such a scenario? I know this is a big issue with helicopters doing winching and such.
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 10,815
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh BTW
I reckon a plan while in the air and tell anyone thats talking to you and destracting you to standby.
And doing everything as you would do normally, unlatch the doors before the approach and pull the mixture in the flare and master switch off.
Land on a hard surface if possible.
But to be honest as much as SSD came across a bit harsh. The likelyhood of you coming to grief is quite remote. Especially if the fire service is waiting for you to land.
As for the static I don't have a clue the car will be insulated from earth by the tyres but I would presume there would be a difference in PD between aircraft and the person. How much of a belt that would give you I don't know.
I reckon a plan while in the air and tell anyone thats talking to you and destracting you to standby.
And doing everything as you would do normally, unlatch the doors before the approach and pull the mixture in the flare and master switch off.
Land on a hard surface if possible.
But to be honest as much as SSD came across a bit harsh. The likelyhood of you coming to grief is quite remote. Especially if the fire service is waiting for you to land.
As for the static I don't have a clue the car will be insulated from earth by the tyres but I would presume there would be a difference in PD between aircraft and the person. How much of a belt that would give you I don't know.
Last edited by mad_jock; 11th Jan 2013 at 09:40.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A couple of things.
Trying to work backwards.....
BAckpacker...nice theory on the ute ride to re-attatch a new wheel. Whilst it worked on a P28R, what you propose is a whole lot more complex. It's hard enough to do with the aircraft on jacks...i have done it yes.
Also on backpackers comments, forgetting airflow, if you take note of aircraft shut down, of the propellor position, you can actually pick a Pa-28 151 from a 161 simply from the propellor stopped position...theres about 20 degree of difference on a correctly rigged aircraft.
------------
Concrete Vs bitumen.
Most airports in australia with sealed surfaces RARELY utilise concrete. The only concrete and Mangalore where this happened, is in the beer garden.
Mangalore is big enough that it actually qualifies as an EMERGENCY alternate for aircraft as big as a 747. You can't taxi anywhere on it in something that big, but at least you can stop
-----------------------
Burning fuel off prior to a 'controlled crash'
Some food for thought there....had a discussion up at the aero club tonite about this incident, with a lot of feedback from our highly experienced CFI.
Do you A.. burn the fuel off or B land tanks full.
After the discussion i think i might opt for B.
Its not the fuel that causes the bang, its the vapour. If you burn the fuel off, then your tanks are full of vapour.
Think about what you should know about a stoichimetric mixture.
------------------------------
172 driver said..........
First part i agree with 100%
Second part I also agree with....if only to save the insurer money.
Where i lose consensus, that how hard it is it to get that prop stopped horizontally.
Next time you go play with an aeroplane, try doing exactly that on the ground. when you realise how hard it is, then take into account what backpacker said about windmill effect and what is needed to actually get the prop stopped.
I will go with my CFI, forget cutting the engine, it is an OWT. You cut the engine you remove an option of going around for another go at the last second. Going with the stop the prop...you kill the engine at the last second, you won't get it stopped anyway, prop makes contact, and its still a bulk strip. The only thing you have done is, increase your workload and reduce your options. Remember, once it all goes pear shaped, the insurer owns it, give yourself the best options....and a live engine has more options than a dead one.
-----------------------------
Restricted Area around Mangalore During the incident.
Mangalore is a very busy training drome, it is also heavily utilised by pilots heading north from melbourne as a waypoint to avoid nearby military airspace. On that particular day, a total fire ban was in place. The whole region is tinder dry and ripe for another firestorm like we had in 2009. The airspace was closed for 2 reasons. 1. to give the pilot unhindered space to manouver, and 2. to allow space for airborne firefighting assets to position should they be needed for an early strike should the unthinkable happen.
Cheers
Jas
Trying to work backwards.....
BAckpacker...nice theory on the ute ride to re-attatch a new wheel. Whilst it worked on a P28R, what you propose is a whole lot more complex. It's hard enough to do with the aircraft on jacks...i have done it yes.
Also on backpackers comments, forgetting airflow, if you take note of aircraft shut down, of the propellor position, you can actually pick a Pa-28 151 from a 161 simply from the propellor stopped position...theres about 20 degree of difference on a correctly rigged aircraft.
------------
Concrete Vs bitumen.
Most airports in australia with sealed surfaces RARELY utilise concrete. The only concrete and Mangalore where this happened, is in the beer garden.
Mangalore is big enough that it actually qualifies as an EMERGENCY alternate for aircraft as big as a 747. You can't taxi anywhere on it in something that big, but at least you can stop
-----------------------
Burning fuel off prior to a 'controlled crash'
Some food for thought there....had a discussion up at the aero club tonite about this incident, with a lot of feedback from our highly experienced CFI.
Do you A.. burn the fuel off or B land tanks full.
After the discussion i think i might opt for B.
Its not the fuel that causes the bang, its the vapour. If you burn the fuel off, then your tanks are full of vapour.
Think about what you should know about a stoichimetric mixture.
------------------------------
172 driver said..........
Nope. The preference is landing on hard surface. Ideally with engine off and prop positioned horizontally.
Second part I also agree with....if only to save the insurer money.
Where i lose consensus, that how hard it is it to get that prop stopped horizontally.
Next time you go play with an aeroplane, try doing exactly that on the ground. when you realise how hard it is, then take into account what backpacker said about windmill effect and what is needed to actually get the prop stopped.
I will go with my CFI, forget cutting the engine, it is an OWT. You cut the engine you remove an option of going around for another go at the last second. Going with the stop the prop...you kill the engine at the last second, you won't get it stopped anyway, prop makes contact, and its still a bulk strip. The only thing you have done is, increase your workload and reduce your options. Remember, once it all goes pear shaped, the insurer owns it, give yourself the best options....and a live engine has more options than a dead one.
-----------------------------
Restricted Area around Mangalore During the incident.
Mangalore is a very busy training drome, it is also heavily utilised by pilots heading north from melbourne as a waypoint to avoid nearby military airspace. On that particular day, a total fire ban was in place. The whole region is tinder dry and ripe for another firestorm like we had in 2009. The airspace was closed for 2 reasons. 1. to give the pilot unhindered space to manouver, and 2. to allow space for airborne firefighting assets to position should they be needed for an early strike should the unthinkable happen.
Cheers
Jas
A flash fire from an almost empty tank would certainly be spectacular for a moment but maybe not as much as 20 gallons of avgas and its subsequent vapour escaping from a punctured wing. 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought the Rolls Royce Spitfire in that accident was completely destroyed.
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Perth, WA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Passable, predictable result
It's been entertaining reading some of the more thoughtful analyses - always good to think about formulating our own emergency plans. There's no doubt that this could have turned out much, much worse, particularly with the atrocious weather conditions we've been experiencing across much of Australia recently. I give credit to a relatively low-time pilot for walking away from what's probably a salvageable aircraft (maybe). However, most of us would have hoped we could have done better.
What surprises me is how many writers are unfamiliar with the characteristics of airline trainees as a group. I'm a moderately experienced PPL and have flown quite a bit on both the east and west coasts. Whatever future attributes these guys may develop, the sausage factory approach to training (often international) airline pilots here in Aust produces some pretty marginal low-time operators. Flying around Perth these days I observe very regular examples of poor stick and rudder skills, poor judgement, marginal situational awareness and plain poor communication. Local pilots can be guilty of all of these things and more, but I'm frequently amazed at how much trouble some 'professional' airline trainees seem to have in simple matters such as arriving at an uncontrolled aerodrome, assessing the prevailing weather and traffic situation, joining the circuit in a safe and convenient fashion, conveying their intentions, and so on.
I disregard the more extreme urban myths - of which there are many - about trainee airline pilots but my own observations make me think that the Mangalore outcome is pretty much as I'd expect or, in truth, a bit better. I don't think that being a professional ATPL precludes a love of aviation and a mastery of basic flying and judgement skills (!) The game is littered with examples of great flying by people I, for one, would aspire to emulate. Sadly, my own observation of, and conversation with, some of the airline trainees makes me wonder if the sausage factories will ever produce such pilots.
What surprises me is how many writers are unfamiliar with the characteristics of airline trainees as a group. I'm a moderately experienced PPL and have flown quite a bit on both the east and west coasts. Whatever future attributes these guys may develop, the sausage factory approach to training (often international) airline pilots here in Aust produces some pretty marginal low-time operators. Flying around Perth these days I observe very regular examples of poor stick and rudder skills, poor judgement, marginal situational awareness and plain poor communication. Local pilots can be guilty of all of these things and more, but I'm frequently amazed at how much trouble some 'professional' airline trainees seem to have in simple matters such as arriving at an uncontrolled aerodrome, assessing the prevailing weather and traffic situation, joining the circuit in a safe and convenient fashion, conveying their intentions, and so on.
I disregard the more extreme urban myths - of which there are many - about trainee airline pilots but my own observations make me think that the Mangalore outcome is pretty much as I'd expect or, in truth, a bit better. I don't think that being a professional ATPL precludes a love of aviation and a mastery of basic flying and judgement skills (!) The game is littered with examples of great flying by people I, for one, would aspire to emulate. Sadly, my own observation of, and conversation with, some of the airline trainees makes me wonder if the sausage factories will ever produce such pilots.