Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Holden McGroin on December 10, 2006, 07:56:04 PM
-
Here is a photo series of a recovery from a gear up landing. (http://www.zianet.com/tedmorris/dg/bombers4.html)
I wonder what your file looks like if you are PIC and you do something like this.
-
Amazing.
Can you say "Career killer"?
-
I don't know, I just have a hard time beleiveing that a pilot crew would FORGET to put the gear down. They run the checklists and even the on board computers would be screaming out them that the gear is down.
-
It's also odd that a tower operator would not confirm gear down on an incoming plane. It's not like they have anything better to do during the aproach.
-
Any bets on what the first words out of the pilots mouth at touchdown was????
AW ****!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
That B-1 was actually being leased out by Embry Riddle Aeronautical University, and used to train junior and senior "Professional Pilot" Majors....
lmao jk.
That pic is a couple months old...I remember reading about it when it happened, and the gear up landing was intentional...
-
also if I remember correctly, the aircaft slid 7,500 feet before coming to a stop. Talk about destroying a runway huh
-
At about 10 p.m. local time on May 8, 2006, a 7th Bomb Wing B-1B Lancer based at Dyess AFB, Texas, made a wheels-up belly landing on runway 31 at Diego Garcia, skidding 7,500 feet down the runway. The aircraft was landing at the end of an 11 hour ferry mission that started at Andersen AFB, Guam. During the landing, the B-1B caught fire and emergency crews extinguished the flames. The four-person aircrew escaped from the plane through the overhead escape hatch. The aircraft was finally removed from the runway 4 days later. The Air Force Accident Investigation concluded the pilots forgot to lower the landing gear. The USAF estimated the damage to the B-1B at $7.9 million, and the damage to the runway at $14,025. RBRM and those old SEABEES made one tough runway, that's for sure! For those of you who've never seen a $285,000,000.00 bomber on the deck, here she is:
-
Originally posted by Mini D
It's also odd that a tower operator would not confirm gear down on an incoming plane. It's not like they have anything better to do during the aproach.
Tower Controllers rarely have time to stare at a landing plane and assess its conditon to see that it is in a proper configuration. That is the pilot's job. The controller just makes sure he's got a place in the pattern and a clear runway. They will do those assessments if the pilot asks (such as if they are not getting all their green lights for the gear). Controllers are getting the next plane set up with clearance, talking on the radio, handing off outbounds to other controllers, accepting new inbounds and coordinating with ground controllers... ITs not like they just sit there and say "Zulu Bravo Milkshake is clear to land - runway 26". They are busy people.
And with regard to the guy who said it was unlikely because of checklists etc.. True...
However, a DC10 crash in Dallas about 20 years ago is all you need to say about checklists.. The pilots were chatting up a cabin attendent and missed the checklist item to set the flaps... The plane barely lifted off before crashing across a busy freeway.
Checklists help, but things can go wrong in the cockpit. I would imagine especially after a long flight like this one. 2nd in command is usually responsible for putting the gear down... Lord knows what distracted him and what distracted the pilot.
-
The DC10 never hit the Freeway that was Delta 191
-
Originally posted by Kurt
Tower Controllers rarely have time to stare at a landing plane and assess its conditon to see that it is in a proper configuration.
I disagree...Sure, the ultimate responsibility of the aircraft is in the hands of the PIC, but in VFR conditions (which was the case for the accident), I believe the controller does have the responsibility of making visual identification of an aircraft at one point or another in the pattern. At least in my experience, but this would be a better question for one of our ATC guys in here
-
yeah if the plane cost $285,000,000.00 why wasn't the controller watching it?
-
The Air Force Accident Investigation concluded the pilots forgot to lower the landing gear.
Show me the report. We're taking this guys word for what happened. I can see it happening, but I want more info.
-
Originally posted by Kurt
Tower Controllers rarely have time to stare at a landing plane and assess its conditon to see that it is in a proper configuration.
I've spent a few years in military control towers and tend to disagree. Someone always grabbed a pair of binoculars and checked for the landing light on the plane during aproach. Always. The tower operators are watching the aircraft on final, the EORs and the tarmac... they're not watching scopes. It's the pilot's responsibility to lower the damn gear, but I'll wager an E-3 got some kind of disciplinary action on that one for not noticing it during final.
-
Originally posted by cav58d
That B-1 was actually being leased out by Embry Riddle Aeronautical University, and used to train junior and senior "Professional Pilot" Majors....
lmao jk.
That pic is a couple months old...I remember reading about it when it happened, and the gear up landing was intentional...
I wonder if the FIRE had anything to do with anything.
I also agree with Mini.
-
OUCH! >.0
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
yeah if the plane cost $285,000,000.00 why wasn't the controller watching it?
teh intarnets porno industry is worth $12,000,000,000.00
u cant watch both at the same times
which would u pic?
-
LMAO debonair
most obviously here, wouldnt the pilot notice that the runways was getting awefully close and he still couldnt hear the wheels touching??
something smell fishy to me, and its not just debonair's boxer shorts.
-
I am sure the tower at Diego Garcia is not exactly the busiest in the world.
-
Originally posted by Habu
I am sure the tower at Diego Garcia is not exactly the busiest in the world.
Werd.
Somebody would have been eyeballing a B-1 out of sheer boredom.
-
Originally posted by cav58d
I disagree...Sure, the ultimate responsibility of the aircraft is in the hands of the PIC, but in VFR conditions (which was the case for the accident), I believe the controller does have the responsibility of making visual identification of an aircraft at one point or another in the pattern. At least in my experience, but this would be a better question for one of our ATC guys in here
Cav, Military might be a little different, but in Civilian aviation, it just doesn't work that way. They may be expected to have a look and see that it is the right type of aircraft they have cleared, but no the position of the gear, or surfaces.
The tower might notice it, but it is not on their 'to-do' list, and they have done nothing wrong by missing it.
-
Originally posted by Mini D
I've spent a few years in military control towers and tend to disagree. Someone always grabbed a pair of binoculars and checked for the landing light on the plane during aproach. Always.
I am willing to believe that military procedure is different from civil. Military planes are no-doubt more likely to come in with some kind of damage.
-
Just asking, But ok I will go with the pilot not putting the gear down ok, But once the pilot noticed the nose of the bomber going to far down couldnt they push the throtle and get back off the runway? I could understand a B-52 being too Hvy but the B-1 has a afterburner on it. So could the pilots do that? Push the throttle to afterburner that is???
RED:aok
-
I tend to agree with the people that say the warning system wouldn't allow this. Anyone that's use FS9 knows that if you lower flaps and prep for landing without putting the gear down all kinds of bells and whistles go off.
As far as the pilot reccognizing that the gear was up and pouring on power, this plane would be nose up just above stall speed. The tail of the plane would have been on the runway before he knew what was going on. Also jet engines have a 2 -5 second lag between adding throttle and increased power. Once he realized what was going on it was too late.
-
a little more info on the "mishap"
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Unlisted.db&command=viewone&id=41
http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/004158.html
Investigators concluded the cause of the mishap was both pilots' failure to lower the landing gear during the aircraft's approach and landing. Contributing factors for the pilots' failure to lower the landing gear were the co-pilot's task oversaturation; the co-pilot's urgency to complete a long mission; both pilots' inattention to instrument readings and the descent/before landing checklist, and the co-pilot's false belief the pilot had lowered the landing gear.
According to the report, the pilot unexpectedly turned over aircraft control to the co-pilot on the final approach. The pilot reported to the air traffic control tower that the landing gear was down despite the fact that the descent/before landing checklist was never completed and the landing gear was never lowered. The red warning light in the gear handle, indicating all landing gear was not down and locked, was illuminated for more than four minutes during the approach.
Additionally, at the time the aircraft landed, the three green position lights, which illuminate after the landing gear has locked in the down position, were not illuminated.
-
Originally posted by cav58d
I disagree...Sure, the ultimate responsibility of the aircraft is in the hands of the PIC, but in VFR conditions (which was the case for the accident), I believe the controller does have the responsibility of making visual identification of an aircraft at one point or another in the pattern. At least in my experience, but this would be a better question for one of our ATC guys in here
"Wind xxx at xx, check wheels down, cleared to land." The words "check wheels down" are a required part of every landing clearance, even if the aircraft has no retracts OR no wheels!
It's not a requirement on the controller's part to visually check, but of course it's good form to do so when the workload permits. A controller is required in VFR conditions to see the aircraft and to scan the length of the runway for obstructions. If the controller cannot see the aircraft for whatever reason, the phrase "not in sight" is required prior to issuing the landing clearance. It's to satisfy a deconfliction requirement, not to fly the plane for the pilot.
When controlling AF aircraft, it's noteworthy that in my experience they've always thrown in either "3 green" or "down and locked" when acknowledging the clearance. If I didn't hear something to that effect, it woulda raised a little red flag.
-
Forgot to add the obvious:
In the event of an aircraft in distress declaring an emergency, my eyes will always be on the bird as long as I can physically see it. If this accident took place in daylight under VFR conditions (don't have time to look right now), the local tower controller OR the shift supervisor OR any other schmuck that happened to be standing up there at the time should have noticed the gear being up. My 2 cents.
-
The folks here that can't imagine how this is possible and are talking about it being 'fishy' should know something: Gear up landings happen all the time despite warning systems, because sometimes people don't follow checklists.
I know folks who will go out and practice stalls, and when they pull back the throttle and their airspeed drops past a certain point, it becomes second nature to reach out and silence the warning horn. The people with warning systems that land gear up usually report that they didn't remember hearing the gear warning, and a bunch of those are probably because they instinctively reached out and flipped the switch without thinkign about what the sound was trying to tell them.
What's unusual here is that it happened with two crew instead of a single pilot. This is a failure of cockpit resource management, nothing else. The 11 hour flight that preceeded the landing probably didn't help, but that's what checklists are for. People who go through the motions or skip checklists are the ones who get into this type of trouble.
Now start your timers, I'm sure Golfer will be in here soon to do some more "rofling' at me having the temereity to talk about "his" subject along with more jabs at my ultralight thing from 6 months ago.
Some of the more pessimistic people in the canard community say that there are two types of people flying retracts. Those who have had a gear up landing, and those who will. The nose gear on the LongEZ and Cozy is retractable, and there's a handful of people who landed on the mains, then commented on how they watched the nose go down... and down,.... and keep going down. Apparently, landing a LongEZ on its nose is an effective way to make the first turnout, it stops it pretty quickly. :D
You know how to tell when you've made a gear up landing? It takes full throttle to taxi.
-
Never appreciated what a beautiful aeroplane the B1-B is, stunning.
-
Originally posted by VOR
"Wind xxx at xx, check wheels down, cleared to land." The words "check wheels down" are a required part of every landing clearance, even if the aircraft has no retracts OR no wheels!
Glad you said that VOR. I kept reading posts...more posts...more posts...nada...nothing. Check Wheels Down you'll hear at every military airport. I remember how big and bad I felt flying into Rickenbacker in a 172. I won't repeat the jokes that everyone says about welding.
Every now and then you'll have a tower operator have a freudian slip you might say and throw out a CWD when they're busy or just bored.
It's NOT a controllers job to check your landing gear, runway alignment or even that your engines are on.
Chairboy,
I've done my job. You'll think twice next time it happens and you'll be here breathing "tomorrow" whenever that day is.
-
Wings/Squadrons often put a pilot near the end of the runway to watch for things like this. I spent 20 years around Air Force runways and never heard of an unintentional gear up landing. I'll have to see the official report to believe it.
-
Ok, I believe.
http://www.acc.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123027298
-
Must be AHII sim pilots, flyn that thing...
That's the best way to land in AHII...
especially if there are other planes within vulching distance of the runway...
:D
-
Originally posted by VOR
"Wind xxx at xx, check wheels down, cleared to land." The words "check wheels down" are a required part of every landing clearance, even if the aircraft has no retracts OR no wheels!
In what country? Certainly not the U.S. Are you refering to a military only procedure?
I have never heard a controller recite that.
"So and so, make left base to one six cleared to land."
Thats it... The wind call is optional an usually only given to people doing pattern work, otherwise when you reported you had the ATIS you told the tower you know the weather.
If you do not tell the tower you have the ATIS, then they will either read the conditions to you or they will ask you to go get it before they give you anything.
Never once in hundreds of my own approaches to multiple fields, or in the thousands of approaches I have listened to on the scanner have I ever heard tower tell a pilot 'Check wheels down'
-
crazy Kurt with his crazy flight time
knowing everything
just crazy
i think the main cause for the gear being up on landing was fatigue think about it
boring 11 hour flight
final approach
snooze zZzZzZ!!!!!!
check wheels down
zZzZzZ.....wait what
oh ****
scraaaaaaappeeeeee!!!!!!!!
damn
never ganna hear the end of this one
-
That was a DC-9 and at Detroit. (http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=19870816-2)
-
Originally posted by Golfer
Glad you said that VOR. I kept reading posts...more posts...more posts...nada...nothing. Check Wheels Down you'll hear at every military airport. I remember how big and bad I felt flying into Rickenbacker in a 172. I won't repeat the jokes that everyone says about welding.
LOL! "Skids down and welded." Yup, heard it before. :D
Unfortunately for the befuddled ATC community, no differentiation is made in the book between aircraft that have wheels and aircraft that do not when talking about the wheels down check, so it's actually trained from day one to issue the CWD to all aircraft.
It's silly and we know it, but from a purely technical point of view it may not reflect favorably on the facility if an accident investigation team noted "deviations from standard phraseology" in their report because someone didn't tell a 172 or a UH-60 to CWD.
As the saying goes, to err is human. To forgive is not in the FARs.
-
Originally posted by Kurt
Are you refering to a military only procedure?
The short answer is yes. (I can understand your confusion.) If you want the longer answer from "the book" (7110.65):
2-1-24. WHEELS DOWN CHECK
USA/USAF/USN
Remind aircraft to check wheels down on each approach unless the pilot has previously reported wheels down for that approach.
NOTE-
The intent is solely to remind the pilot to lower the wheels, not to place responsibility on the controller.
a. Tower shall issue the wheels down check at an appropriate place in the pattern.
PHRASEOLOGY-
CHECK WHEELS DOWN.
-
There is such a thing as a 172 with retractable landing gear.
-
Yep, but it's called a 172-RG. Nobody in an RG would miss the opportunity to mention that it's an RG, it's a point of pride. :D
-
My father-in-law logged 1,375 hours of pilot time. This was his one mistake:
(http://www.wwiirt.com/usaaf/william_wilsterman/bill_pics/wheels_up.jpg)
He ment to pull up the flap lever and pulled the gear lever.
-
All... my... friends.... know the low rider.
-
Originally posted by Kurt
However, a DC10 crash in Dallas about 20 years ago is all you need to say about checklists.. The pilots were chatting up a cabin attendent and missed the checklist item to set the flaps... The plane barely lifted off before crashing across a busy freeway.
You have a link to the story?:huh
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
All... my... friends.... know the low rider.
I am so tempted to pimp out and blingify that B1. I'm too tired though.
-
That article previously posted said that pilot told the tower gear down, VOR. According to the book, that would mean the check wheels down wasn't necessary.
-
The one thing Im curious about...and no one else mentioned....
These things have pretty stinking bright landing lights. If they were on approach, shouldnt the tower operator be seeing some pretty bright lights coming his way?
I mean, it was 10pm, according to that report.
I'm not defending the crew, just kinda curious how a tower guy wouldnt think "Hey, why cant i see their landing lights?"
That's all.
-
Originally posted by nirvana
That article previously posted said that pilot told the tower gear down, VOR. According to the book, that would mean the check wheels down wasn't necessary.
I didn't read the article, but you're right.
-
Originally posted by Slash27
You have a link to the story?:huh
Yes, its easy to find, and I did get the wrong Aircraft type above... It was a 727
Anyhow, you can search on the net for Delta 1141, but here is one link
http://www.airdisaster.com/special/special-dl1141.shtml
-
Originally posted by LePaul
These things have pretty stinking bright landing lights. If they were on approach, shouldnt the tower operator be seeing some pretty bright lights coming his way?
Sometimes yes and sometimes no. Depends on alot of things like background light on the field or in town if there's a cityscape nearby, etc. There are too many possibilities to really guess at. Every tower envoronment is different in it's own ways.
-
Originally posted by Kurt
Yes, its easy to find, and I did get the wrong Aircraft type above... It was a 727
Anyhow, you can search on the net for Delta 1141, but here is one link
http://www.airdisaster.com/special/special-dl1141.shtml
Thanks, I remember the incident but I was having hell finding it. The going i to traffic thing didnt sound right on that one. All I was getting hits on was the '85 crash. I was in Grapevine that day watching that storm blow in.
-
Sorry if I came off sounding condescending, your knowledge is still much greater then mine. I'm not worthy!
-
Originally posted by Slash27
Thanks, I remember the incident but I was having hell finding it. The going i to traffic thing didnt sound right on that one. All I was getting hits on was the '85 crash. I was in Grapevine that day watching that storm blow in.
Yeah, I think I got two crashes confused. Sorry about that.
I read a lot of NTSB reports on big and small crashes, its a habit I got into when I got my license because its a good reminder that the best pilots can make the worst mistakes. It keeps you on your feet to read about things like that.
Anyhow, sorry for the mixed up initial post... My bad...
But it certainly proves the point - Checklists don't insure accuracy of the crew.
-
Yep, you have to actually USE the checklist properly to see the benefit.
-
Originally posted by nirvana
Sorry if I came off sounding condescending, your knowledge is still much greater then mine. I'm not worthy!
I didn't take it like that at all. I should have read the article. ;)