Especially engines with three blade props. At least one blade, if not more, is going to hit the ground, and likely trash the engine anyway. At least he kept it mostly on the foam blanket on the runway.
Cessna 401 gear up landing.
- Thread starter MikeD
- Start date
Especially engines with three blade props. At least one blade, if not more, is going to hit the ground, and likely trash the engine anyway. At least he kept it mostly on the foam blanket on the runway.
Roger Roger
Bottom of the list
very engine and airframe dependent, as well as whether we’re talking a full gear failure or a single leg not extending. Typically on a piston engine damage requiring propeller repair is going to require an engine removal and tear down (or at least did when I worked on them), but what is found on said tear down on engine running vs stopped might be the difference between replacing a handful of mandatory at removal parts vs a crankshaft and or case. With the small supply of engines and parts anymore that might very well be a difference in downtime measured in months to a year+. Not that that should necessarily matter in the moment, but that’s the reality of it.
Those are all good points. Sounds like these guys had one main that wouldn’t extend despite repeated troubleshooting, and chose that if they were able to raise all of the gear, to land with all up. Guessing for probably controllability concerns on landing. I suppose with enough excess speed and two blade props, one could possibly on short final shutoff both engines and feather both props and hit the starter button to level both props horizontally so they don’t hit on landing, but that’s a heck of a lot of workload and now gliding the plane on a short final. Don’t know if I’ve ever seen that done successfully. I do wonder for this plane, a 1967 C-401, if it takes very little damage-wise for insurance to just total it out.
Here’s an interesting subject. Runway foaming by CFR prior to a gear up landing. Used to pretty common, isn’t as much so these days, but for some pretty specific reasons. Personally, I find it beneficial, it certainly doesn’t hurt. But these days, it’s not as easy to foam a runway as it used to be.
Back in the day, when runway foaming was more common, there were both dedicated fire trucks for that known as foam tenders, as well as a specialized used for it. Foam tenders were multi-thousand gallon water/foam crash trucks that were usually tractor-trailer type, with the tank-trailer being multi-use for firefighting, resupply of dedicated crash fire trucks, and an extendable wide spray bar system on the back end used specifically for laying down a foam blanket on a runway. Back then, the firefighting foam used was known as protein foam. Protein foam was a very viscous foam that was good for use in fire suppression or firefighting, but was best used for vapor protection to prevent fires, being placed in thick form over fuel spills and containing the fuel vapors so they would not ignite, especially when cutting operations are in progress during rescue, or anything else that may produce sparks such as aircraft damage to electronics before power is removed. These qualities of protein foam made it perfect for runway foaming operations.
Protein foam began to get replaced by Aqueous Film Forming Foam in the 1980s, the one that has since been found to cause cancer, AFFF was cheaper to produce, and had much better fire suppression qualities than protein foam, but being a thinner and less viscous foam than protein foam, it wasn’t the best for runway foaming operations as the foam blanket didn’t last as long, and had to be reapplied more often in order to maintain its integrity than protein foam had to. With protein foam going away, the foam tender crash trucks went with it, as did their ability to quickly and efficiently apply a foam blanket on a runway,
AFFF, and even the new foams that have replaced it, can be applied to runway foaming operations, but it has to be done with a turret or handline application, which causes a few issues that have to be dealt with. First, it takes more time to apply a foam blanket because it takes longer to apply it somewhat uniformly on the runway surface. Second, without a dedicated foam tender truck, regular crash trucks have to apply the foam blanket itself, which requires them to use about 1/4 to 1/3 of their onboard foam/water, which they then need to be refilled before the aircraft making the belly landing comes in to land (assuming a small airport with only one crash truck), and the AFFF foam blanket needs to be applied mot too long before the landing occurs. Still, this can be done and it does have advantages, it certainly doesn’t hurt to have applied before a landing with a gear malfunction.
These days, because of the above limitations, runway foaming is offered by larger crash rescue departments at larger airports, but is generally by request at smaller airports, such as the situation with the Cessna 401, where the aircrew specifically requested to have a foam blanket applied. You can see the foam blanket is not extremely thick, and was applied in a sweeping pattern, as that the best the crash truck’s turret could do with modern foams, they can’t apply a uniform blanket, at least not without taking a very somewhat time to do.
There was an accident in 1999 at LAS involving a Hawker-600 corporate jet. The Hawker had taken off from SLN, and on liftoff, a main landing gear tire burst as it was retracting into the gear well. The exploding tire took out hydraulic lines in the gear bay that weren’t fully protected. Hydraulics were progressively lost as fluid leaked out. The crew ran the appropriate checklists, noting that they wouldn’t have normal landing gear extension or flaps, among other things, and decided to continue to LAS as they needed to burn down fuel anyway. Arriving at LAS, the preparations for landing were made. Manual gear extension didn’t work, so the choice was made for a gear up landing on RW 19L. Reportedly, CFR made preparations to foam the runway but the PIC didn’t want it due to concerns about directional control after touchdown. Truthfully, on touchdown in a gear up landing, you’re really just along for the ride until the plane stops. For the no-flap gear up landing, a fairly high approach speed was needed, but due to the light weight of the plane, not exceptionally high. Still, on touchdown the plane slid about 3/4 of the way down the 9700’ runway. The Hawker has a center keel skid plate under the fuselage, and this was worn through on the long slide-out, which resulted in the pool of hydraulic fluid that had leaked out and was in the center box area to ignite, we well as a fuel tank compromised from the skid plate wear being punctured and leaking, which also ignited as the jet slid to a stop. No injuries luckily as everyone egressed, but a foam blanket, even one applied at 1/3 and 2/3 down the runway, would definitely have helped.
Video below of the incident..
View: https://youtube.com/watch?v=rzxTMDpLOvQ
Back in the day, when runway foaming was more common, there were both dedicated fire trucks for that known as foam tenders, as well as a specialized used for it. Foam tenders were multi-thousand gallon water/foam crash trucks that were usually tractor-trailer type, with the tank-trailer being multi-use for firefighting, resupply of dedicated crash fire trucks, and an extendable wide spray bar system on the back end used specifically for laying down a foam blanket on a runway. Back then, the firefighting foam used was known as protein foam. Protein foam was a very viscous foam that was good for use in fire suppression or firefighting, but was best used for vapor protection to prevent fires, being placed in thick form over fuel spills and containing the fuel vapors so they would not ignite, especially when cutting operations are in progress during rescue, or anything else that may produce sparks such as aircraft damage to electronics before power is removed. These qualities of protein foam made it perfect for runway foaming operations.
Protein foam began to get replaced by Aqueous Film Forming Foam in the 1980s, the one that has since been found to cause cancer, AFFF was cheaper to produce, and had much better fire suppression qualities than protein foam, but being a thinner and less viscous foam than protein foam, it wasn’t the best for runway foaming operations as the foam blanket didn’t last as long, and had to be reapplied more often in order to maintain its integrity than protein foam had to. With protein foam going away, the foam tender crash trucks went with it, as did their ability to quickly and efficiently apply a foam blanket on a runway,
AFFF, and even the new foams that have replaced it, can be applied to runway foaming operations, but it has to be done with a turret or handline application, which causes a few issues that have to be dealt with. First, it takes more time to apply a foam blanket because it takes longer to apply it somewhat uniformly on the runway surface. Second, without a dedicated foam tender truck, regular crash trucks have to apply the foam blanket itself, which requires them to use about 1/4 to 1/3 of their onboard foam/water, which they then need to be refilled before the aircraft making the belly landing comes in to land (assuming a small airport with only one crash truck), and the AFFF foam blanket needs to be applied mot too long before the landing occurs. Still, this can be done and it does have advantages, it certainly doesn’t hurt to have applied before a landing with a gear malfunction.
These days, because of the above limitations, runway foaming is offered by larger crash rescue departments at larger airports, but is generally by request at smaller airports, such as the situation with the Cessna 401, where the aircrew specifically requested to have a foam blanket applied. You can see the foam blanket is not extremely thick, and was applied in a sweeping pattern, as that the best the crash truck’s turret could do with modern foams, they can’t apply a uniform blanket, at least not without taking a very somewhat time to do.
There was an accident in 1999 at LAS involving a Hawker-600 corporate jet. The Hawker had taken off from SLN, and on liftoff, a main landing gear tire burst as it was retracting into the gear well. The exploding tire took out hydraulic lines in the gear bay that weren’t fully protected. Hydraulics were progressively lost as fluid leaked out. The crew ran the appropriate checklists, noting that they wouldn’t have normal landing gear extension or flaps, among other things, and decided to continue to LAS as they needed to burn down fuel anyway. Arriving at LAS, the preparations for landing were made. Manual gear extension didn’t work, so the choice was made for a gear up landing on RW 19L. Reportedly, CFR made preparations to foam the runway but the PIC didn’t want it due to concerns about directional control after touchdown. Truthfully, on touchdown in a gear up landing, you’re really just along for the ride until the plane stops. For the no-flap gear up landing, a fairly high approach speed was needed, but due to the light weight of the plane, not exceptionally high. Still, on touchdown the plane slid about 3/4 of the way down the 9700’ runway. The Hawker has a center keel skid plate under the fuselage, and this was worn through on the long slide-out, which resulted in the pool of hydraulic fluid that had leaked out and was in the center box area to ignite, we well as a fuel tank compromised from the skid plate wear being punctured and leaking, which also ignited as the jet slid to a stop. No injuries luckily as everyone egressed, but a foam blanket, even one applied at 1/3 and 2/3 down the runway, would definitely have helped.
Video below of the incident..
View: https://youtube.com/watch?v=rzxTMDpLOvQ
ChasenSFO
hen teaser
Can't a lot more go wrong that way and waaay more damage? I feel like once you have the runway made it'll glide pretty easy, I'd imagine fire risk is higher with fuel dumping into the engines isn't it? I've just never once thought I WOULDNT kill the engines in a gear up landing in a prop plane. Whats the advantage of keeping them running beyond "buy another one you rich mf"?
I'm going to say it now, if I ever kill the engines then need to go around and die, laugh at me. Please. I don't even want to survive that if I suck that bad at flying after all these years that all my thousands of simulated gear up and dead stick landings that I kill the engines prematurely and eat up an entire ass runway lol. What an embarrassing way to go, but more embarrassing to survive.
Last edited:
jhugz
Well-Known Member
I can’t think of any time in a large multi (or any multi for that matter) that I’ve practiced a dual engine failed / glide landing. Now is it landing the space shuttle, no…but during an emergency why complicate things? Have the out for the go around. The moment you kill those engines, it’s gone.
The probability that you “save” the engines isn’t that great. Yeah maybe you get to do less work on them but again who cares. Insurance is going to be figuring out the rest of the airplane, let them figure out the engines too.
Finally, as for the additional fire hazard, I’ve never heard of a fire hazard from a prop strike. Not that it couldn’t happen, but just never heard of it. You have a huge hunk of metal (the fuselage) welding against the runway producing a ton of sparks and friction. Again, I’d argue that you can’t even come close to the fire hazard that’s causing.
I'm in the "kill the engines when the props hit the ground" camp. Up until that point, it's just a normal-ish landing. I want a go-around available until the last safe moment, which is when the props strike the ground.
Also, consider that a gear up landing with the engine(s) running is the default state for forgetting to put the gear down. There are many videos of those and there is almost never a fire. Why add a confounding variable if you don't have to?
To add to previous post:
So the only difference between an engine on gear up landing due to a gear malfunction vs forgetting to put down the gear is intent. We've probably all walked past an unintentional gear up aircraft on the ramp at some point. How many of those showed evidence of fire?
So I can put myself in the same situation literally hundreds have been in before with likely boring results or try something new. I'll take the scenario I've seen the results of before
So the only difference between an engine on gear up landing due to a gear malfunction vs forgetting to put down the gear is intent. We've probably all walked past an unintentional gear up aircraft on the ramp at some point. How many of those showed evidence of fire?
So I can put myself in the same situation literally hundreds have been in before with likely boring results or try something new. I'll take the scenario I've seen the results of before
DropTank
Well-Known Member
Engines off and secure, electrical off, fuel all shut off.
I want no fuel flow and no sparks.
You eant to try to "save" the engines?
Yeah, sure, whatever. Knock yourself out. That's not really the problem right now.
You're not going around. So don't screw it up.
Running engines (piston with props) at idle will cause a significant amount of drag, so landing with props feathered and gear up will have considerably less drag so plan accordingly.
I want no fuel flow and no sparks.
You eant to try to "save" the engines?
Yeah, sure, whatever. Knock yourself out. That's not really the problem right now.
You're not going around. So don't screw it up.
Running engines (piston with props) at idle will cause a significant amount of drag, so landing with props feathered and gear up will have considerably less drag so plan accordingly.