Would you cycle the gear?

Roy Smith wrote:

In article %0ibc.61265$K91.149112@attbi_s02,
"William W. Plummer" wrote:

I'm a bit confused. Why would you fail to follow the POH directions under
"Emergency Landing Gear Extension" in Section 4?

We did indeed pull out the book and read those instructions. We
followed all of them except for the one which said to raise the
emergency gear lever. We had the mains down and locked and didn't want
to do anything which might compromise that.

Was that the right decision? In retrospect, I'm not sure, but that's
what we were thinking at the time.

I can tell you that if you were given that problem on a checkride, sim or
airplane, you prob. wouldn't have passed. Procedures were developed and tested
by manufacturers. Yes, as PIC you have the authority to decide NOT to follow
Emergency Procedures, but you will have to explain that to the Check
Airman/Examiner/Fed. In the airlines, we follow the QRH(Quick Reference
Handbook). If it says cycle the gear, we cycle the gear. If it doesn't lock
down, we retract and hit the Emerg.. Extension Switch and let it free-fall. If
it still doesn't work, we plan for a one, two, or all-wheels up landing.

What did the Fed say when you told him you didn't follow the checklist?

TJ, B757 I/P
PHX
================================================== ===============
Pilots track their lives by the number of hours in the air,
as if any other time isn't worth noting....
Michael Rarfit

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 01:47:40 GMT, "Capt. Wild Bill Kelso, USAAC"
wrote:

snip

I can tell you that if you were given that problem on a checkride, sim or
airplane, you prob. wouldn't have passed. Procedures were developed and tested
by manufacturers. Yes, as PIC you have the authority to decide NOT to follow
Emergency Procedures, but you will have to explain that to the Check
Airman/Examiner/Fed. In the airlines, we follow the QRH(Quick Reference
Handbook). If it says cycle the gear, we cycle the gear. If it doesn't lock
down, we retract and hit the Emerg.. Extension Switch and let it free-fall. If
it still doesn't work, we plan for a one, two, or all-wheels up landing.

What did the Fed say when you told him you didn't follow the checklist?

FWIW, according to his accounting of events, the ONLY checklist item
that he skipped (engage auto extension override) would have no
mechanical effect on the operation/indication of the landing gear
system.

I agree that following published checklist procedures (especially
during abnormal/emergency operation) is important.

TC

"David Cartwright" wrote in message
...

The only thing I'd be tempted to do in addition, assuming your airfield is
big enough, you're experienced enough, and there's enough time to make it
a
reasonably safe manoeuvre, is to make a power-off, glide landing, and to
get
the second pair of hands in the cockpit (in this case your student) to
crank
the propeller with the starter so it's roughly horizontal and thus won't
bash the runway. A prop strike will generally shock-load the engine and
necessitate a complete strip down.

And if you do this, you might very appropriately find the FAA filing an
enforcement action against you for careless and reckless operation.
Stopping the engine for economic reasons converts a situation with 100%
survivability potential to a situation where you have no ability to do a go
around or cushion a landing with power or add power if you are landing
short.

---
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

I was with a student in one of our club Arrows. We put the gear down
and got green lights for the 2 mains, but not for the nose.

Would activating the emergency gear extension system have been an option to
extend the nose gear in case it were down but not fully locked?

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

In article m,
"Richard Kaplan" wrote:

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

I was with a student in one of our club Arrows. We put the gear down
and got green lights for the 2 mains, but not for the nose.

Would activating the emergency gear extension system have been an option to
extend the nose gear in case it were down but not fully locked?

Indeed it would have been. In fact, we did that, it being one of the
items on the checklist in the POH.

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

Indeed it would have been. In fact, we did that, it being one of the
items on the checklist in the POH.

In that case, then I agree with what you did. The only likely situation
where the emergency gear extension would have left you without 3 wheels down
and locked would have been if there were a mechanical obstruction, and as
you pointed out it is possible that cycling the gear could have made the
situation worse in this case.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

"Capt. Wild Bill Kelso, USAAC" wrote in message
...

I can tell you that if you were given that problem on a checkride, sim or
airplane, you prob. wouldn't have passed. Procedures were developed and
tested

In my sim he would have passed with flying colors --- he did not blindly
follow a generic checklist or rush to a pre-programmed course of action, but
instead he used his knowledge of airplane systems to develop a reasoned
response to his particular situation. A+ in my book for that

by manufacturers. Yes, as PIC you have the authority to decide NOT to
follow
Emergency Procedures, but you will have to explain that to the Check
Airman/Examiner/Fed. In the airlines, we follow the QRH(Quick Reference

Particularly in general aviation airplanes, there are lots of situations not
covered in the POH or at least lots of nuances not covered in the POH.

For example, the POH for most single-engine piston airplanes says to land as
quickly as practical after an engine failure. But what should you do if you
have a partial engine faillure? The correct response as far as I am
concerned in my simulator is to immediately climb regardless of any prior
ATC clearance or instructions and I would venture to believe that most
pilots would agree with this, even though I am aware of no POH which
includes this in the published procedure.

Consider that airlines have a LOT more established emergency procedures and
a lot more equipment redundancy, so whereas you might be correct that in an
airline situation there is a proper checklist for almost every situation, in
piston general aviation the pilot may need to do more independent thinking
to solve a problem. And even in the airline world, there is a Capt. Haynes
who made a landing in South Dakota a number of years ago who probably agrees
as well that independent thinking by an airline pilot is a good thing.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

In article m,
"Richard Kaplan" wrote:



And if you do this, you might very appropriately find the FAA filing an
enforcement action against you for careless and reckless operation.
Stopping the engine for economic reasons converts a situation with 100%
survivability potential to a situation where you have no ability to do a go
around or cushion a landing with power or add power if you are landing
short.


Not to mention that the propellor probably won't stop turning to begin
with.

--
Dale L. Falk

There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing around with airplanes.

http://home.gci.net/~sncdfalk/flying.html

"Richard Kaplan" wrote:

For example, the POH for most single-engine piston airplanes says to land as
quickly as practical after an engine failure.

As if you have a choice?

But what should you do if you
have a partial engine faillure? The correct response as far as I am
concerned in my simulator is to immediately climb regardless of any prior
ATC clearance or instructions and I would venture to believe that most
pilots would agree with this, even though I am aware of no POH which
includes this in the published procedure.

I'm going to play devil's advocate here, and ask why? The obvious
answer is "altitude is your friend", so you want to get as much of it as
you can while you still can. And, I certainly agree that in a situation
like this, I'll do whatever I think is best and let ATC fend for
themselves. But...

If there's something mechanically wrong with the engine, might adding
power for a climb make things worse?

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

If there's something mechanically wrong with the engine, might adding
power for a climb make things worse?

Yes, I agree, depending on the airplane. I would not add power if a
particular airplane's engine-failure checklist left the controls at less
than a full-power configuration; in that case, I would simply climb at the
maximum possible rate given the engine's performance.

In my airplane in particular, the first response to an engine failure is
"everything forward" -- partly because the throttle controls a variable
speed fuel pump which can fail at low speed only and partly because the
mixture controls an altitude-dependent fuel controller that has failures
modes with anything other than full rich. These correctable engine failure
modes justify "everything forward" for my airplane since the benefits of
correcting a partial engine failure usually outweight the risks of
converting a partial failure to a full failure.

While climbing I would proceed to the nearest airport and circle until I
were certain that I were in position for a successful deadstick landing if
necessary, and only then would I voluntarily reduce power.

--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com