Beech 1900 Belly landing at Woodbourne (NZWB), New Zealand

[canadair]

lads, bottom line,
crew got it down, got it stopped, well done.
not easy, but fantastic,
bits flew off, whatever, stopped.
I say good call, and good landing
cheers

[motherbird]

Great landing, just glad that I wasn't on board.

[Tarq57]

The engined were running at touchdown, at what appeared to be normal rpm.
AFAIK foaming of runways does not occur in NZ, for two reasons (that I know of): If the RFS use up the HFFF by applying it to the touchdown zone (there is rarely enough to do the entire runway) it takes time to refill the tanks. In that time any fire or spark suppressing effect of the liquid applied will have decreased significantly. HFFF doesn't actually stay "foamy" very long, its effectiveness on runways is considered to be limited, at best. It's best applied, as it was in this case, after the aircraft is stopped, to prevent/contain a post-crash fire.
According to a post re the same incident on the D&G forum, the fuselage is reinforced at the prop line, and no windows directly in line with them.

[28L]

It would seem to me that nobody - manufacturer, operator, ATC or pilots - could have done anything to have made a better job of it. Terrific job.
Talk all you like about landing on grass, using foam etc etc, but could the outcome have been any better? No. Nuff said
Edited to say.....I would never normally comment on an incident without first hearing the facts, but in this case they would appear to speak for themselves

[skiingman]

Originally Posted by patrickal

Great job by the crew, but ditto the questions on the engine shutdown. I don't think I'd like being a passenger sitting alongside those props as they fragment and fly apart. The skin on a B1900 is probably not going to do more than slow a direct hit down a bit. Any pieces coming through the skin or the glass could be lethal.

I was wondering what the FARs say about that, but can't find a requirement for a "blade off" test for props.

§25.875Reinforcement near propel-
lers.
(a) Each part of the airplane near the
propeller tips must be strong and stiff
enough to withstand the effects of the
induced vibration and of ice thrown
from the propeller.
(b) No window may be near the pro-
peller tips unless it can withstand the
most severe ice impact likely to occur.

I'm guessing if the procedure is to not stop the props, the Beechcraft folks are quite sure props aren't going to go into the cabin. Just a guess.

[bomarc]

any reinforcement in the prop area of the fuselage is just for the ice shedding just as the gentleman wrote above.

if anyone actually has the checklist of gear up landing from beach, I hope they will post it.

feathering props on short final might prolong float as the drag is suddenly reduced...I've seen this in planes that have shut down and feathered on short short final.

doing so does comit the plane to land, no last second go around.

tough call, safest way to keep your license is to do what the book says...

[spongebob_bm]

Row 1 has no window, but sitting in row 2 still feels (and looks) very close to the prop! Pilots did a great job especially in their briefing to the passengers.
Short video I shot a few years ago on a Air Georgian 1900D

Sorry for the quality but I shot it with a very old digital camera

[sequ]

As far as I remember, the procedure calls for not feathering to maintain complete, positive control all the way to touchdown. Furthermore, the blades are composite and are designed to shatter in exactly the way they did. Also, the gear, with their tires in the retracted position, allow for contact of the tire on all three gear. There are no wheel well doors and the tires protrude slightly below the fuselage. Never confirmed directly from a Raytheon rep, but was taught as such by my instructors at FSI in Wichita. Notice no sparks under the airplane???
All of this was a long time ago and is slightly ¨foggy¨, but I believe this is as textbook as it gets.
Saludos,
SEQU

[bomarc]

sequ I believe is quite right.

even the dc3 had gear that stuck out a little bit in case of a gear up landing.

[flyby_kiwi]

Row one of this company's 1900 has no window (where the baggage locker normally is on most others), row two also has no windows do due reinforcing for the ice off the props which i thought was made of kevlar(?), eitherway I would have thought it would be strong enough to stop part of the blade coming inside if the situation arose.
As sequ mentions, feathering the props could have some cost benifit but the consequences of getting it wrong far outweigh any potential benefits. Especially so for the national flag carrier, its probley better off making the insurance claim than putting the punters at undue risk.

[flyby_kiwi]

Here is a link to the D&G forum where one of the gingerbeers has posted some good pics of the damage (not too much all things considered)

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...=1#post3357595

[Mark1234]

Totally uneducated observation, but given the engine location, the props were going to die feathered or not, presumably requiring engine attention in eithe case.

Given that, and assuming the a/c is built to ensure the prop doesn't finish up inside, retaining the go-around option seems reasonable?

[flyby_kiwi]

I concurr, an its company policy

[SpootNICK]

I agree with most of the above. Text book touchdown. No doubt about it.

Well done to the crew!

Obvioulsly depending on the runway condition and length, I think i would of personaly elected to feather the props.....and then cut the fuel off at about 10 feet agl. Being a two crew operation, the PNF could of been asked to take care of this just prior to touchdown. The PF would then be able to concentrate on getting the flare right, and hopefully bring her to a stop on the runway.

Here is a clip about a similar aircraft (Beech 100 i think) landing with its wheels up, but feathering the props just prior to touchdown. Saving the engines and airframe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVmHyJMDcus

(excuse the cheezy news readers in the background)

Then again, the PT-6 being of modular design, I am sure the majority of that engine could still be salvaged and repaired. This is not my concern. I would be concerned about blade fragments possibly coming through the cabin, or the engines themselves ingesting grit and catching fire.

I remember the 1900 had a kevlar plate built into the cabin walls around the prop area (to prevent ice from breaking off the props and damaging the pressure hull) This should provide some prtection against any flying prop fragments.

Your thoughts?

SN

[planecrazi]

Having spent many years flying the B200 with high flotation gear, I remember in the blue checklist QRH, it mentions that during a wheels up landing, differential braking can be used for directional control. This was because the bigger wheels actually stuck out beneith and could still be used to your advantage.

[lomapaseo]

RE:

I was wondering what the FARs say about that, but can't find a requirement for a "blade off" test for props.
§25.875Reinforcement near propel-
lers.
(a) Each part of the airplane near the
propeller tips must be strong and stiff
enough to withstand the effects of the
induced vibration and of ice thrown
from the propeller.
(b) No window may be near the pro-
peller tips unless it can withstand the
most severe ice impact likely to occur.
I'm guessing if the procedure is to not stop the props, the Beechcraft folks are quite sure props aren't going to go into the cabin. Just a guess.

The only requirement for consideration of an "uncontained" prop blade is similar to the same for any uncontained bits from inside the engines as well.
in simple terms, the aircraft systems need be designed to be, redundant, or shielded, to a practical extent, from the debris.
However, it is not practical, to provide any meaningful protection from a whole prop blade release anywhere in line with the prop swath, end of story.
by-the-way, in the case of props striking the pavement hard enough to break off, their tangential acceleration and hazard to the cabin will be greatly reduced.

[Sir Osis of the river]

DC3

Bomarc,

Yep, the DC3 gear also stuck out and full breaking was available in a gear-up. In addition, our procedure was for the Capt. to do the landing from the right seat,(Co-Jo sitting in engineers seat or back), because the old metal blade would most often lodge right in the Capt seat if it came off.

This would appear not to be a problem with the composite blades on the 1900

Loks like a good job. Well done boys and girls.

[skiingman]

...in the case of props striking the pavement hard enough to break off, their tangential acceleration and hazard to the cabin will be greatly reduced.

Yeah I was guessing that is a big part of the deal. Enough energy around for a fantastic picture, but not entire blades leaving the hub tangentially and making a beeline for the cabin. And wow, what a fantastic photo.

[bomarc]

Interesting side note and worthy of consideration for all pilots. the medical officer for the town in which the emergency landing was made is saying the pilots made a huge error by landing there.

while I don't know much about New Zealand, I do appreciate that a pilot should take into account emergency response capability, including hospitals.

the doctor in question indicated that the small town hospital ( level 2 ...whatever that means) would have been overwelmed(sp?)

[lomapaseo]

Interesting side note and worthy of consideration for all pilots. the medical officer for the town in which the emergency landing was made is saying the pilots made a huge error by landing there.
while I don't know much about New Zealand, I do appreciate that a pilot should take into account emergency response capability, including hospitals.

I imagine that the pilot intended to make a belly landing rather than a crash landing. I can't recall much experience with multiple injuries being involved with belly landings.