Cessna gear-up at MMU today (Morristown NJ)

[Kingfish]

I just got a call from a friend who was watching the news showing live
shots of a Cessna making a belly landing at MMU. Sounds like one of
the mains wouldn't lock down - did anybody see this? I'm sure it'll be
on the 6pm news tonight.

[Marco Leon[_4_]]

"Kingfish" > wrote in message
...
>I just got a call from a friend who was watching the news showing live
> shots of a Cessna making a belly landing at MMU. Sounds like one of
> the mains wouldn't lock down - did anybody see this? I'm sure it'll be
> on the 6pm news tonight.

I saw it on MSNBC while waiting in line somewhere. It looked like a Cessna
172RG. When he came in to land, only the left gear was out which left me
wondering why he did not retract it in the interest of directional control.
Once he touched down, it became obvious the left gear was not locked in the
down position when it safely retracted/folded back immediately on touchdown.
After some sparks and a short rollout, the emergency truck came and sprayed
the underbelly and the pilot got out a bit later. It took him a little
longer than I would expect but he may have tried to secure the plane in a
certain manner before exiting.

Good job by the pilot overall.

Marco

[Don Byrer]

On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:43:42 -0500, "Marco Leon" <
>I saw it on MSNBC while waiting in line somewhere. It looked like a Cessna
>172RG.

My thought too...if I read the tail # right it's 9453 8,0, or D
9453D is a 172RG
9453 8 and 0 are 182Q's, so it must be a D (?)

>When he came in to land, only the left gear was out which left me
>wondering why he did not retract it in the interest of directional control.

I saw the cnn video, it was obvious to me that it was trailing and not
locked. They are a bit further forward if down and locked. If you
have a hydraulic failure, it wont stay up. But I also have about 55
hours in 'em and took my commercial in one :)

>Once he touched down, it became obvious the left gear was not locked in the
>down position when it safely retracted/folded back immediately on touchdown.

it basically trailed back. they are either locked down or held up by
hydraulic pressure.

>After some sparks and a short rollout, the emergency truck came and sprayed
>the underbelly and the pilot got out a bit later. It took him a little
>longer than I would expect but he may have tried to secure the plane in a
>certain manner before exiting.

>Good job by the pilot overall.
YES...about TIME GA gets some good press.

Dumb comment on cnn tho about "I guess there was two inside there"
The right seater exited first, and the pilot later, probably after
verifying everything was secure and master off

Uhh...doesnt the PILOT usually sit on the left?
:)

obviously they didnt know dat
--Don

Don Byrer KJ5KB
Radar Tech & Smilin' Commercial Pilot Guy
Glider & CFI wannabe
kj5kb-at-hotmail.com

"I have slipped the surly bonds of earth; now if I can just land without bending the gear..."
"Watch out for those doves...<smack-smack-smack-smack...>"

[news.verizon.net[_2_]]

And he said that the pilot had shut the engine down as as was standard
procedure. Clearly clueless. and no the engine was running till it hit the
ground.

"Don Byrer" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007 13:43:42 -0500, "Marco Leon" <
>>I saw it on MSNBC while waiting in line somewhere. It looked like a Cessna
>>172RG.
>
> My thought too...if I read the tail # right it's 9453 8,0, or D
> 9453D is a 172RG
> 9453 8 and 0 are 182Q's, so it must be a D (?)
>
>>When he came in to land, only the left gear was out which left me
>>wondering why he did not retract it in the interest of directional
>>control.
>
> I saw the cnn video, it was obvious to me that it was trailing and not
> locked. They are a bit further forward if down and locked. If you
> have a hydraulic failure, it wont stay up. But I also have about 55
> hours in 'em and took my commercial in one :)
>
>>Once he touched down, it became obvious the left gear was not locked in
>>the
>>down position when it safely retracted/folded back immediately on
>>touchdown.
>
> it basically trailed back. they are either locked down or held up by
> hydraulic pressure.
>
>>After some sparks and a short rollout, the emergency truck came and
>>sprayed
>>the underbelly and the pilot got out a bit later. It took him a little
>>longer than I would expect but he may have tried to secure the plane in a
>>certain manner before exiting.
>
>>Good job by the pilot overall.
> YES...about TIME GA gets some good press.
>
> Dumb comment on cnn tho about "I guess there was two inside there"
> The right seater exited first, and the pilot later, probably after
> verifying everything was secure and master off
>
> Uhh...doesnt the PILOT usually sit on the left?
> :)
>
> obviously they didnt know dat
> --Don
>
> Don Byrer KJ5KB
> Radar Tech & Smilin' Commercial Pilot Guy
> Glider & CFI wannabe
> kj5kb-at-hotmail.com
>
> "I have slipped the surly bonds of earth; now if I can just land without
> bending the gear..."
> "Watch out for those doves...<smack-smack-smack-smack...>"

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Don Byrer" wrote:

.. It looked like a Cessna
>>172RG.
>
> My thought too...if I read the tail # right it's 9453 8,0, or D
> 9453D is a 172RG
> 9453 8 and 0 are 182Q's, so it must be a D (?)
>

Yep, a lot of later 172RGs are N9xxxD; I used to own 9387D.

http://tinyurl.com/325kym


9453D is one of the last ones made.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 03:16:58 GMT, "news.verizon.net"
> wrote:

>And he said that the pilot had shut the engine down as as was standard
>procedure. Clearly clueless. and no the engine was running till it hit the
>ground.

This brings up the question: How do you know the engine was running?
Just because the prop is turning doesn't mean the engine is running.
Typically the prop doesn't stop until well into the roll out even with
a dead engine...unless the engine seized. Of course if it's digging
into the runway it stops pretty quick unless the engine is developing
power.

Roger (K8RI)


>

[Maxwell]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 03:16:58 GMT, "news.verizon.net"
> > wrote:
>
>>And he said that the pilot had shut the engine down as as was standard
>>procedure. Clearly clueless. and no the engine was running till it hit
>>the
>>ground.
>
> This brings up the question: How do you know the engine was running?
> Just because the prop is turning doesn't mean the engine is running.
> Typically the prop doesn't stop until well into the roll out even with
> a dead engine...unless the engine seized. Of course if it's digging
> into the runway it stops pretty quick unless the engine is developing
> power.
>

You should be able to stop the prop by pulling the mix, and slowing the
aircraft to just short of a stall.

[~^ beancounter ~^]

yea, i would think the pilot would want to stop, rock the prop and get
it horz b4 belly landing....a few bucks here, a few bucks ther...hey,
b4
too long it add up...no?




On Dec 2, 7:15 pm, "Maxwell" > wrote:
> "Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 03:16:58 GMT, "news.verizon.net"
> > > wrote:
>
> >>And he said that the pilot had shut the engine down as as was standard
> >>procedure. Clearly clueless. and no the engine was running till it hit
> >>the
> >>ground.
>
> > This brings up the question: How do you know the engine was running?
> > Just because the prop is turning doesn't mean the engine is running.
> > Typically the prop doesn't stop until well into the roll out even with
> > a dead engine...unless the engine seized. Of course if it's digging
> > into the runway it stops pretty quick unless the engine is developing
> > power.
>
> You should be able to stop the prop by pulling the mix, and slowing the
> aircraft to just short of a stall.

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sun, 2 Dec 2007 20:15:03 -0600, "Maxwell" >
wrote:

>
>"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 03:16:58 GMT, "news.verizon.net"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>And he said that the pilot had shut the engine down as as was standard
>>>procedure. Clearly clueless. and no the engine was running till it hit
>>>the
>>>ground.
>>
>> This brings up the question: How do you know the engine was running?
>> Just because the prop is turning doesn't mean the engine is running.
>> Typically the prop doesn't stop until well into the roll out even with
>> a dead engine...unless the engine seized. Of course if it's digging
>> into the runway it stops pretty quick unless the engine is developing
>> power.
>>
>
>You should be able to stop the prop by pulling the mix, and slowing the
>aircraft to just short of a stall.

I think you will find you would have to pull up and stall in a rather
steep attitude to get the prop to stop in many planes. In a well
loosened engine on a 150 or 172 it might not stop until well into the
roll out. The prop on the Deb with that 260 HP windmills down to some
where between 30 and 40 MPH which is well below stall speed. Of
course once it's stopped it takes a whale of a lot more speed to get
it started again.<:-))

Roger (K8RI)
>

[Tina]

On Nov 30, 2:57 pm, "Dan Luke" > wrote:
> "Don Byrer" wrote:
>
> . It looked like a Cessna
>
> >>172RG.
>
> > My thought too...if I read the tail # right it's 9453 8,0, or D
> > 9453D is a 172RG
> > 9453 8 and 0 are 182Q's, so it must be a D (?)
>
> Yep, a lot of later 172RGs are N9xxxD; I used to own 9387D.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/325kym
>
> 9453D is one of the last ones made.
>
> --
> Dan
> T-182T at BFM

Would it be good practice to be sure the doors are unlatched and open
a bit before touchdown in a circumstance like this? I'm concerned
about there being enough warping to bind the doors in place.

[Peter Clark]

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 04:11:49 -0800 (PST), Tina >
wrote:


>Would it be good practice to be sure the doors are unlatched and open
>a bit before touchdown in a circumstance like this? I'm concerned
>about there being enough warping to bind the doors in place.

"DOORS - Unlatch prior to touchdown" is on the forced-landing no-power
checklist. I was also taught to also prop something in there (like a
book or jacket or something).

[Shirl]

"Roger (K8RI)" > wrote:
> I think you will find you would have to pull up and stall in a rather
> steep attitude to get the prop to stop in many planes. In a well
> loosened engine on a 150 or 172 it might not stop until well into the
> roll out.

On the first maintenance flight after a top overhaul (Varga, Lyc O-320),
pulled the throttle back all the way when entering the flare, and the
engine quit. The prop did not continue spinning, it stopped *instantly*.
It was a non event ... continued the flare and made as nice a landing as
it would have been with the engine at idle. But the instantly-stopped
prop was noticed by the controller who immediately asked if we were
going to need assistance. We didn't ... we easily rolled to the next
exit, then restarted for taxi.

[Kingfish]

On Dec 11, 6:19 pm, "~^ beancounter ~^" > wrote:
> yea, i would think the pilot would want to stop, rock the prop and get
> it horz b4 belly landing....a few bucks here, a few bucks ther...hey,
> b4 too long it add up...no?
>

Assuming it was a two blade prop, sure. But, that might be a bit much
to ask in the heat of the moment, knowing you're about to hear some
very bad grinding sounds on touchdown. It's probably better to just
ace the landing and not be distracted by the prop. At that point, the
insurance co owns the plane anyway.

I'm not surprised by Shirl's comment of the prop stopping immediately
on a top-overhauled engine. There's a lot more friction due to tight
clearances that haven't opened up yet. Glad to hear it was handled
well though, and turned out to be a non-event.

[Michael Huber[_2_]]

Kingfish wrote:

> Assuming it was a two blade prop, sure. But, that might be a bit much
> to ask in the heat of the moment, knowing you're about to hear some
> very bad grinding sounds on touchdown. It's probably better to just
> ace the landing and not be distracted by the prop. At that point, the
> insurance co owns the plane anyway.

IIRC, Avweb once had a column on how trying to save the prop(s) before a
belly landing by shutting off the engine is not a good idea. Their main
points were
- Distracts pilots whose workload is already high enough (which would be
what you wrote)
- Commits you to the landing earlier than necessary: Once you stop the
engine, a go around is out of the question because there probably will not
be enough time for restart. If the rest of the airplane is fine, there's
normally no reason not to retry if something isn't quite right. By stopping
the engine(s), you reduce your options.
- Makes what already is an unusual situation - belly landing - an even more
unusual situation - belly landing combined with engine out landing.
- Some pilots in the past have apparently stopped the engine(s) too early,
then ran out of airspeed/altitude or neglected to monitor the airspeed
probably due to distraction, stalled, and crashed.

They argued that all of these factors point to trying to save the engines on
a gear-up landing being a potentially dangerous practice.