gear up landing of a Piper Arrow

Let the prop strike at full power, you want a new firewall
forward. With a two blade prop, land on the mains, hold the
nose off and shut the engine down, it might even stop with
the blades horizontal.

But if you can get the mains down, you'll have a normal
landing, brakes and steering control. Very little damage to
the structure and probably zero injuries.



"Jose" wrote in message
. net...
| I was always under the impression that it's
| better to land on the plan's belly (with no gear down)
than it is to
| land with only 2 of the 3 gear down.
|
| Well, if the gear can keep the prop from striking, that's
a good thing.
|
| Jose
| --
| Humans are pack animals. Above all things, they have a
deep need to
| follow something, be it a leader, a creed, or a mob.
Whosoever fully
| understands this holds the world in his hands.
| for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

buttman wrote:

http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/

click on "emergency response to troubled plane"

An arrow tried to bounce the plane on the runway to get the stuck
landing gear to come down, but all it did was make the other three
gear get stuck in the down position.

Wow, the follow up report is much more exciting than the landing!

A flight school mechanic & pilot wanted to try the old pull down the
gear from a truck, because they had seen that work in an Internet
video. The airport manager and sheriff dept. disagreed with that and
the end result was the mechanic getting zapped with a Stun Gun!

I would agree that such a maneuver is far too risky for the reward,
although it has paid off in the past for others. Could you fly the
airplane perfectly 6 feet over the runway in a perfect straight line
without so much of a gust moving the plane? A foot or two up or down
and you could cause a lot injury. I wouldn't want to be underneath
risking my neck and arms to find out.

http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?se...cal&id=5038872

If you have insurance, the company does not want you adding
extra personal injury risk, they insured for hull damage,
not decapitated mechanic and wrecked truck. The TV shows
won't pay for suicide pictures [yet].



"Owen" wrote in message
...
| buttman wrote:
|
| http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/
|
| click on "emergency response to troubled plane"
|
| An arrow tried to bounce the plane on the runway to get
the stuck
| landing gear to come down, but all it did was make the
other three
| gear get stuck in the down position.
|
| Wow, the follow up report is much more exciting than the
landing!
|
| A flight school mechanic & pilot wanted to try the old
pull down the
| gear from a truck, because they had seen that work in an
Internet
| video. The airport manager and sheriff dept. disagreed
with that and
| the end result was the mechanic getting zapped with a Stun
Gun!
|
| I would agree that such a maneuver is far too risky for
the reward,
| although it has paid off in the past for others. Could
you fly the
| airplane perfectly 6 feet over the runway in a perfect
straight line
| without so much of a gust moving the plane? A foot or
two up or down
| and you could cause a lot injury. I wouldn't want to be
underneath
| risking my neck and arms to find out.
|
| http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?se...cal&id=5038872
|

Owen wrote:
The airport manager and sheriff dept. disagreed with that and
the end result was the mechanic getting zapped with a Stun Gun!

I wonder if "1 injured" will go in the NTSB report (if there is one).

Gerald

On Feb 17, 9:20 am, "Jim Macklin"
wrote:
If you have insurance, the company does not want you adding
extra personal injury risk, they insured for hull damage,
not decapitated mechanic and wrecked truck. The TV shows
won't pay for suicide pictures [yet].

It may be questionable if they would pay for the headless A&P anyway.
Its one of those things that if it works you look pretty slick, if it
fails you look really stupid.

-Robert

On Feb 16, 9:06 pm, "Jim Macklin"
wrote:
Always better to land with the mains down or with them up if
wing and nose. But A proper pre-flight and maintenance
reduces the issue to a rare case. But then lots of people
don't do the maintenance they should do.

Its amazing how often such a stuck gear situation follows immediately
after maintenance or after a really hard landing.

-Robert

Recap tires, tires over inflated, low strut or over inflated
strut, tow bar still attached to nose wheel.

I actually had some first hand knowledge of that incident.
Pilot flew in late in the evening, line person had to get
special tow bar for the aircraft. Line boy left it on the
aircraft, to speed up the departure the next morning.
Pilot comes out at dawn, does a "thorough pre-flight" and
takes-off with the tow bar adapter still on the nose wheel
[Piper Arrow]. Aircraft was high time.
Nose wheel stuck 1/2 way up, Pilot flew around for a while
and then landed. Airframe damage was limited to nose and
firewall. In my mind the pilot was solely responsible since
that big chunk of red painted iron was visible.

But the FBO bought the pilot a new engine, prop, and all
other parts and installed them at no charge. I guess they
thought that a jury might not understand the phrase "pilot
in command."


"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
ps.com...
| On Feb 16, 9:06 pm, "Jim Macklin"
| wrote:
| Always better to land with the mains down or with them
up if
| wing and nose. But A proper pre-flight and maintenance
| reduces the issue to a rare case. But then lots of
people
| don't do the maintenance they should do.
|
| Its amazing how often such a stuck gear situation follows
immediately
| after maintenance or after a really hard landing.
|
| -Robert
|
|

"Jim Macklin" wrote:
I guess they thought that a jury might not understand the phrase "pilot
in command."

Which is probably a reasonable guess.

A jury of my peer would know all about airplanes, firearms,
criminal law, etc. They would know terms such as "ring gap"
or "P-lead" as well as the difference between Bullseye and
Unique or Red Dot and Blue Dot.

But just like me, all attorneys will excuse them form a jury
because they can't be manipulated.


"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...
| "Jim Macklin"
wrote:
| I guess they thought that a jury might not understand
the phrase "pilot
| in command."
|
| Which is probably a reasonable guess.
|