What does 'wheels up landing' mean to you?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What does 'wheels up landing' mean to you?
I was talking to a non-pilot a while ago and told him how a Yak52 I once had a share in had done a wheels-up landing (not by me!).
What picture does that generate in your mind?
He replied "What, it landed upside down? How did that happen?".
To me, the description 'wheels up landing' is pretty unequivocal. It means it landed with its undercarriage still retracted. But he, a non pilot, though I was saying it landed with its wheels pointing upwards.
Am I being presumptuous in thinking him a bit dim? Or is his take on my description entirely reasonable for a non pilot? If the latter, I wonder what other strange impressions we give to non-flyers when describing our aviating exploits?
What picture does that generate in your mind?
He replied "What, it landed upside down? How did that happen?".
To me, the description 'wheels up landing' is pretty unequivocal. It means it landed with its undercarriage still retracted. But he, a non pilot, though I was saying it landed with its wheels pointing upwards.
Am I being presumptuous in thinking him a bit dim? Or is his take on my description entirely reasonable for a non pilot? If the latter, I wonder what other strange impressions we give to non-flyers when describing our aviating exploits?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, yes, to go along with the thread-drift a '52 landed gear-up will touch down on the mains and the tail handle; even the wheel brakes can still be used in the roll out. The prop will be smashed and the flaps bent, but otherwise it'll be OK.
The prop is wood, and designed to break without damaging the mighty engine or gearbox. So in Russia they jacked it up, fitted a new prop, straightened the flaps, and went flying.
When it happened to ours, UK engineers refuses to sign off the engine and gearbox without a shock-load strip. Such were our engine hours (under CAA rules) it was cheaper to simply fit a new engine. One of the group was an engineer and he took the now-scrap original engine to his workshop and out of interest stripped it down. Not only was there absolutely no damage to engine or gearbox, there was no discernible wear, either; the honing marks were still fresh in the cylinder bores yet according to the CAA this engine was almost life expired and fit only for scrap.
The prop is wood, and designed to break without damaging the mighty engine or gearbox. So in Russia they jacked it up, fitted a new prop, straightened the flaps, and went flying.
When it happened to ours, UK engineers refuses to sign off the engine and gearbox without a shock-load strip. Such were our engine hours (under CAA rules) it was cheaper to simply fit a new engine. One of the group was an engineer and he took the now-scrap original engine to his workshop and out of interest stripped it down. Not only was there absolutely no damage to engine or gearbox, there was no discernible wear, either; the honing marks were still fresh in the cylinder bores yet according to the CAA this engine was almost life expired and fit only for scrap.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Inverness-shire
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't forget the recent airprox in which a Typhoon (was it?) "bunted" to avoid a collision.
Several newspapers published diagrams of how it had done a half outside loop (starting at about 250 feet if I recall correctly!
Several newspapers published diagrams of how it had done a half outside loop (starting at about 250 feet if I recall correctly!
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What does 'wheels up landing' mean to you?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are pilots who have landed wheels up, and there are pilots who are going to land wheels up, just be prepared.
I focus on "configuration assurance" so at each phase of flight, I'm assuring that the aircraft is configured for what I'm about to do next with it. I have many flights for which extending the wheels for landing will end very badly, so I'm busy assuring they are where I intend them to be, not just "down".
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: The World
Posts: 1,271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Wheels up" refer only for RG airplanes, or better, if your wheels are up on a C172 you are in real dip**** waters ... ;-). If talking to non-pilots, use the term "belly burning" landings instead, as it avoids the discussion on where is up and where is down.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if your wheels are up on a C172 you are in real dip**** waters
so saying that that is going to happen, is simply not right.
I know you understand what you think I said but I am not sure that you realise that what you heard is not what I meant.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 3,325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No-one should think themselves immune from landing wheels-up, especially in an aeroplane like the Yak which has no warning horn or auto-extend system. When ours suffered that fate, the pilot had apparently made one 'wheels down' approach but was bulked by a microlight and went around, retracting the gear.
His unexpected and unplanned second circuit was fraught with trying to fit the high performance Yak (in terms of high rate of climb, lead budgie rate of descent) into the usual stream of floaty bomber-circuit spam cans so he was distracted. He'd mentally crossed-off putting the gear down as he'd already done it and not yet landed.
I managed 30+ years of taildragging without ever ground looping, and several years of Yak flying without forgetting the gear. But I was always aware that one day I might.
A friend (who flew the type for the airline) tells me of a BA 1-11 which landed gear-up at Tees Side, with three captains on the flight deck. They were practicing flapless landings, and as the aeroplane was empty of pax or luggage it was fuelled up to the limit to get the weight up to make the exercise realistic. The weight meant the approach speed was above the upper limit for the 'gear not down' detector, and all 3 highly experienced Nigels forgot to do it.
I believe even 'Cats Eyes' Cunningham once did it in a Comet, too. So skygods are not immune.
His unexpected and unplanned second circuit was fraught with trying to fit the high performance Yak (in terms of high rate of climb, lead budgie rate of descent) into the usual stream of floaty bomber-circuit spam cans so he was distracted. He'd mentally crossed-off putting the gear down as he'd already done it and not yet landed.
I managed 30+ years of taildragging without ever ground looping, and several years of Yak flying without forgetting the gear. But I was always aware that one day I might.
A friend (who flew the type for the airline) tells me of a BA 1-11 which landed gear-up at Tees Side, with three captains on the flight deck. They were practicing flapless landings, and as the aeroplane was empty of pax or luggage it was fuelled up to the limit to get the weight up to make the exercise realistic. The weight meant the approach speed was above the upper limit for the 'gear not down' detector, and all 3 highly experienced Nigels forgot to do it.
I believe even 'Cats Eyes' Cunningham once did it in a Comet, too. So skygods are not immune.
I believe even 'Cats Eyes' Cunningham once did it in a Comet, too.........
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know you understand what you think I said but I am not sure that you realise that what you heard is not what I meant.
I am simply unwilling to accept the notion that a pilot who flies RG "will" have a gear up, or that a gear up has not happened to that pilot yet. Silly.
We, the pilots of the world, will have a terrible time convincing insurers that we are worthy of being insured for gear up landings, if our attitude appears one of being resigned to "it's going to happen sometime...". I would rather enter the process with a commitment that I will always act so as to prevent landing with an unintended gear position. Of course, I insure for mistakes and system failures, but it doesn't mean that I plan to have either, or I'm just going to allow it to happen, by letting fate take its course. I will act to prevent.
A simple gear up landing generally does not result in an injurious accident, just scraped metal, and a sheepish call to the insurance man. Then higher premiums later. A wheels down landing in an amphibian on the water runs a good chance of costing lives, but will certainly scrap a plane. For me, a wrong gear position landing could be fatal, so I will work to prevent any such event.
If a pilot I was to train came to me with a "when" rather than remotely "if" attitude to gear up landings, I would be having a heart to heart talk with that pilot about attitude before we flew.
I may one day have a gear up, (though I'm really trying not to). If I ever do, I'm not going to stand beside the plane, and say "I knew that would happen one day..." - what a poor attitude! This is an attitude, and professional image issue. Would I allow a pilot to fly my plane, if that pilot was working toward their when of a gear up landing?