Plane in hte ATL makes belly landing

Malko

Malko

ughhh
Staff member
Plane in the ATL makes belly landing

Haven't seen it posted, but if so, oops.

http://www.11alive.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=72088

video:
http://www.11alive.com/video/player.aspx?aid=46710&bw=

If you check the video, they first attempted to land with the nose gear and left mains down. That didn't work so they went around for the belly landing. Great job right down the centerline.

Obviously I wasn't there, but a question I had is, would you normally take a belly landing rather than partial gear down? It was the option that worked here, just curious if it depends on the aircraft or ???

Anyway, it was a great job. Hats Off to the crew.
 
... during which time he came down on the busy east-west runway to try to bump the landing gear into place.
Click to expand...
I'm going to assume that the news story didn't get this part quite right. On the other hand if the article is correct, and the pilot did try bouncing on one main and a nose gear to get the other main into place, I'd vote him a prime potential candidate for a Darwin award.
 
Ya gotta love the part where the firefighters foam the plane afterwards. Good thing that the pilot closed the door before they did that!

Again, I'll give the benefit of the doubt and guess that there was some spilled fuel or something that caused them to decide to foam. Otherwise, WTF???
 
Bumping the Gear

The gear bumping is actually not an original idea. Sometime in the 80's, can't remember exactly when, but a 727 had the same problem. Right main and nose gear came down, no left main. The emergency gear system in the 727 is gravity free fall, so when that didn't work, the crew decided to try to force the gear down by thumping on to the runway at MCO and going around. It didn't work, and they landed the airplane with just the two wheels down. It's not too bad an idea if you have a free fall system and enough fuel for the go around.
 
goredbirds said:
The gear bumping is actually not an original idea. Sometime in the 80's, can't remember exactly when, but a 727 had the same problem. Right main and nose gear came down, no left main. The emergency gear system in the 727 is gravity free fall, so when that didn't work, the crew decided to try to force the gear down by thumping on to the runway at MCO and going around. It didn't work, and they landed the airplane with just the two wheels down. It's not too bad an idea if you have a free fall system and enough fuel for the go around.
Click to expand...
"It's not too bad an idea...." unless you miss judge the rate of closure and hit a prop or wing tip on the runway and lose control and cartwheel at something over rotation speed, possibly killing everyone on board.

Risk versus reward.

The risk of a gear up landing resulting in death, or even any injury is practically nonexistent. The reward of trying to do the "bump" is to save some easily replacable aluminum skin.

In my opinion the risk of turning an airplane into a ball of scrunched up aluminum is not worth the potential saving of a few thousand dollars (of the insurance company's money, not yours).

The same line of logic applies to the idea of shutting down engines and bumping the props to save a prop strike and the cost of an engine teardown. Here is an article by Rick Durden that covers that scenario pretty well: AvWeb column.


 
Nice landing, but it looks like he almost lost control while trying to bump the gear down the first time. He was almost off the runway too. That was a risky move if you ask me. He could have easily lost control.
 
Yeah, I noticed that too. I was thinking he was going to touch a runway light with that main gear at one point. I would got some altitude have been trying to just pull back one the yoke real hard and get it to fall like that.

Another thing I noticed is he never tried to recycle the gear, bring it up, back down, etc.

Good job of shutting down the engines the way he did. I wonder if that was part of his checklist? I was wondering if he would do that before he landed or if he would keep the engines going in case he needed to go around.

I would like to think that I could have come away with a similar outcome given the situation...
 
SteveC said:
The risk of a gear up landing resulting in death, or even any injury is practically nonexistent. The reward of trying to do the "bump" is to save some easily replacable aluminum skin.

In my opinion the risk of turning an airplane into a ball of scrunched up aluminum is not worth the potential saving of a few thousand dollars (of the insurance company's money, not yours).
Click to expand...

:yeahthat:

I'm with you 100 percent on this, Steve. An airplane can be replaced. Sure, a gear up landing will cost $$$, but so be it.

On the other hand, if you crash and burn trying to get the gear down, well, the dead people's lives cannot.

One thing that has stuck with me from when I was first practicing engine outs was what my primary instructor said. I had a situation where there was a place I could have easily put the plane down, but probably damaged it, and a place where it would have been more difficult to put the plane down but it would likely have been undamaged. I went for the more difficult option.

I was promptly told, stop. If you lose your engine, the insurance company owns the airplane. Forget about the airplane, worry about yourself and your passengers.
 
I give the guys credit for trying out all their options. Have you ever landed an airplane in a crosswind, and kept it rolling straight down the centerline on just the one upwind wheel? It was a great way to demonstrate to a student the hows and whys of a crosswind landing, and it was perfectly safe.

When I was in newhire school our instructor threw this scenario at us in the sim. Our airplane has a free fall backup system also, so we gave the touch and go a shot. Didn't work in the sim either, but we never almost lost control.
 
Timbuff10 said:
<snip>

Good job of shutting down the engines the way he did. I wonder if that was part of his checklist? I was wondering if he would do that before he landed or if he would keep the engines going in case he needed to go around.
<snip>
Click to expand...
Monday morning quarterbacking, but I'm not sure I agree with his decision on feathering the props. In my earlier post I put a link to an AvWeb article talking about a C-310 that stalled and crashed short of the runway when the pilot feathered the props (to save the engines with a nosewheel that wouldn't extend) but was on a standard approach path rather than having excess speed or altitude. (Here's the link again.)

A turbine engine is different than a piston engine, and I don't know what is involved with a sudden engine stoppage due to a prop strike, but I doubt if there are any safety issues involved. Just monetary issues. The King Air operating manual has no advice on gear-up landings at all.

I do know, however, that a 100 series King Air will drop like a rock if you pull power off completely during landing (props forward). We keep 400-600 pounds of thrust until after touchdown, otherwise we're almost guaranteed to "drop it in". I suspect that in order to fully feather the props in the scenario we are talking about the pilot would want to be high, or fast (or both) on final approach, pull power to idle, then feather the props. I can be pretty sure that they'll see high descent rates during the time that the power is idle and the props are windmilling (prior to feathering), but I don't know what the descent profile will be when both props reach feather. I've never flown with both props feathered, and I doubt this guy did either. Bottom line, in my opinion the guy was being a test pilot, and gambling their lives on getting the profile right with no possibility of a second try. I'd rather keep the power on because I know how the plane is going to fly in that configuration, and all of my options (including a go-around) are still available.

Here's a quote from Rick's article that sums it up:
That lead one of our more experienced pilots and flight instructors to remark that a gear-up landing is considered an emergency. Sandy commented that a landing without an operative engine is also an emergency. She wondered whether the pilot of the accident aircraft had ever practiced a landing with both engines shut down and the props feathered. She suspected he hadn't. She then wondered why in the world a pilot who was facing an emergency would intentionally create a second one, especially one he had never, ever practiced.
Click to expand...
Even though turbine engines are 10 to 20 times more expensive than piston engines, that doesn't change the equation: (my life) > (cost of engine).
 
I wouldn't think a sudden stop in a King Air 200 would be a big deal. the PT6 engine is a free turbine, so even if the props are feathered the engine will continue to operate normally. There's no physical connection between the prop shaft and the turbine shaft. My guess is he feathered in order to save the props, not the engines. He also didn't feather until he was about 5 feet over the centerline. I guess he figured he had the landing assured.
 
A skinned up king air is temporary.

A fatal ground loop after you drag a wing trying to 'bang the landing gear' out is permanent.

Like goredbirds said, it's a free-air turbine so there wouldn't be any damage to the gas generator. Plus, on the king airs, the landing gear doesn't fully retract and stays slightly protruded from the bottom of the engine nacelle (or whatever it's call on the KA).

I think you might even have braking authority when the gear is up too, but I'm not sure and too lazy to look for my old -1900 notes downstairs. But don't quote me on that!
 
goredbirds said:
I wouldn't think a sudden stop in a King Air 200 would be a big deal.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't think so, either. BTW, I thought it was a KA B100, not a 200? Might be mistaken on that.
the PT6 engine is a free turbine, so even if the props are feathered the engine will continue to operate normally. There's no physical connection between the prop shaft and the turbine shaft.
Click to expand...
I would word that description a little bit differently. The PT6 actually has two turbine wheels, one of which drives the compressor section, the second drives the prop. The drive shaft for one is *inside* the drive shaft for the other. The "no physical connection" is between the "power" section (turbine and propeller, Nf or N2) and the "gas generator" section (turbine and compressor, Ng or N1). The propeller is connected to a turbine, just a different turbine than the one driving the compressor vanes. The gas generator section will keep turning even with a prop stoppage. The power section will not.

My guess is he feathered in order to save the props, not the engines. He also didn't feather until he was about 5 feet over the centerline. I guess he figured he had the landing assured.
Click to expand...
Certainly possible and makes more sense, I suppose. I didn't see the video.

I'm not sure that doing that would save the props, though, since there is probably going to be a couple of blades getting smacked on the runway, it's just that they won't be under power at the time. I would suspect that the axial loading involved would require some inspection or teardown of the prop and gearbox, maybe less extensive than the radial load involved with a powered prop *sudden stoppage*, but probably some blade replacement and inspection involved anyway.

I see your point, I'm just not real enthusiastic about adding extra risk (how much *risk* may be debatable) just to save the insurance company some money. I don't want to be a hero, just alive.
 
Looking at the video again it looks like it probably was a B100, but I can't tell for sure. If it was, it would definitely be a big deal to shut down the motors before impact. That gear box is expensive...

Forgive me on the PT6 wording... The 1900 was many years ago for me as well. Thanx for the info though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top