How Long Does It Take to Fly Again After a Gear Up

Now that cockpit GoPro cameras are equally common equally iPads, it's only a matter of time before someone posts the ultimate deer-in-headlights moment: the daze and terror of a pilot just commencing an inadvertent gear-up landing, otherwise known equally the $60K slide.

It might be simply as interesting if the photographic camera kept running through the backwash—the track recovery, the telephone call to the insurance agent and, ultimately, what to practise if this happens to you lot.

Despite the worn clich of those who have and those who will, the risk of a gear-up landing is relatively low, although there are indications that the incidence of gear-ups is increasing. Fortunately, a gear-up landing—whether inadvertent or unavoidable—is hardly a life-threatening outcome. Injuries are all only unheard of and if the airplane is properly insured, it'south repairable. But non always. Older retracs with hard-to-notice props and parts may be an economic loss after a gear-up. And parts are definitely getting harder to find.

In this study, we'll sort through the accident tape on gear-upwards landings and offering advice on what to do if you take i. Hint: In your own best involvement, involve yourself intimately in the repairs. Don't driblet it off at the shop and permit your insurer sweat the details, unless the shop has a good human relationship with your insurer.

Blow or Not?

We swept 10 years worth of NTSB blow records on gear-upwardly landings looking for useful clues in the data. Why exercise they occur? How do they occur? Can you avoid them? How many are at that place?

That terminal question is the almost fraught, for everyone nosotros spoke to for this study agrees that not all gear-upwards landings are reported to either the NTSB or even insurers. The reason is obvious. Pilots are worried most getting tangled upwardly in an FAA enforcement action and if testify can exist rapidly recovered from the rails and tucked away in the night corner of a maintenance hangar, who'south to know?

The larger reason may exist regulatory. NTSB 830, which defines reportable accidents and incidents, has specific language that precludes the requirement to study typical gear-upwardly landing damage because information technology doesn't meet the threshold of "substantial damage."

If, on the other hand, a rider or crew fellow member was injured in the gear-up, rare as that is, or the aeroplane slides off the track and takes out the glideslope shack, an NTSB filing is required. In that context, we're not sure why then many gear-upwards landings really are reported. Just we're glad they are, because without fifty-fifty this minimal data, nosotros would accept no clue of why these things happen.

We looked at NTSB-listed gear-upwards landings that occurred between 2005 and 2015. We found a total of 156. That'due south an average of xv a year or a niggling over ane a calendar month. Nosotros suspect the bodily occurrence is several times college than that for the same reasons. You probably know that airlines aren't immune from gear-up landings, but we by and large excluded these from the dataset.

Bizjets have their share, too, commonly related to worn parts or poor maintenance. The two-pilot jet set is relatively immune from the inadvertent, antenna-smearing, belly-peel-rashing ride down the pavement sans wheels. Training helps, we're sure.

Ah, were information technology so with the weekend pilot flying the kid to higher or practicing approaches, especially owners of Cessna 210s. Our review of the information shows that 44 percent of gear-up landings come every bit a complete surprise to the pilot, while 35 percent are what we might term unavoidable. In other words, the pilot was aware of some kind of gear trouble and landed with the gear stowed in the wells or with one or more legs fully or partially extended.

The remaining xx percent of gear-upward incidents aren't, technically, gear-ups if you ascertain the occurrence as landing with no wheels at all or just fractional extension. This category consists of pilots landing with what they thought was normal gear extension, only to take the wheels collapse. These are due to difficult landings, side-loading in crosswinds, downlock failures, diverse kinds of poor maintenance and, according to some of the reports, no particular reason at all.

I Just Forgot

If at that place'south a common theme in gear-up landings, you'd have to be every bit dense every bit a mud debate to miss it: cockpit distraction. Time afterwards fourth dimension, pilots who've washed the slide tell the FAA or investigators that something distracted them from their normal routine and lowering the wheels just got overlooked. More than i airplane pilot said the gear-up warning horn was clarion away but went unnoticed until the plane ground to a halt.

The hitting parade of distractions? You name it, it's on the list: Tower inverse the runway; looking for traffic; worrying about a crosswind; impromptu CTAF debates; a go effectually; confused by a checklist; an odd odor in the cockpit. If the overwhelming majority of retractable pilots didn't land with the wheels properly locked, you could exist forgiven for thinking pilots have the attention span of gnats.

Merely even those who forget the wheels accept probability on their side. Injuries and fire aren't unheard of, but are so rare as to barely merit mention. The i fatal we establish involved a Mooney pilot who realized he had neglected the wheels when the prop started chewing up the runway. He attempted a go around and flew into a tree.

Nosotros found three incidences of fire, one caused when the airplane slid off the runway and had the wing tanks sliced open by runway lights. One aeroplane burned after the slide was contained on the runway, patently because of a pocket-size fuel leak.

Although we couldn't find meaningful information to back up it, sliding on concrete or asphalt appears to cause less damage than risking a landing in grass, which can hibernate obstacles and cause parts of the aircraft to dig in, potentially flipping it or causing more damage.

The Gear Broke

Landing gear systems tend to be reliable, but the data shows they're far from foolproof. That's especially true if you're flying a Cessna 172RG or 210, the twin poster children for gear that won't play when the switch is moved to down. More than on that in a moment.

As with gear-ups in general, there's a discernible design in gear systems that malfunction. Mooneys and Bonanzas seem to suffer the fewest issues, Cessna singles the near and Cessna twins after that. The accident tape is replete with stories of gear that wouldn't come up downward or that complanate on the runway, but to piece of work perfectly when swung for a postal service-incident check.

Airplanes that employ electric/hydraulic systems seem to be the nigh susceptible to gear extension failures. That would be Cessna and Piper and larger twins. For their singles, Beech and Mooney accept favored electric motors driving transmissions that lower the gear with rods and bell cranks. All gear systems are susceptible to misrigging, simply this appears less often equally an issue in Beech and Mooney singles.

And that gets us to the Cessna 210. We plant 27 gear-upwards incidents with the 210, or 17 pct of the total. The 210 is significantly over-represented in the data. Of the 27, only one was an inadvertent wheels-upward landing. Fully 96 pct of the 210 gear-ups nosotros constitute were due to some kind of mechanical failure in the system. And there's plenty to neglect.

We plant examples of hoses that leaked, fittings that parted, doors that hung up, motors that burned up, linkages and downlocks that failed, modifications done improperly—it's enough to kickoff you shopping for a 206.

In the past, nosotros've noted that the Cessna 210 gear is well designed, but requires careful maintenance. As the fleet ages and parts go more than expensive and difficult to become, our view is that information technology's generous to phone call the Cessna gear system well conceived. It clearly just isn't every bit reliable as the Beech and Mooney designs. Even owners who are diligent about maintenance have gotten bamboozled by their mechanics.

In one case, a mechanic failed to install a replacement hydraulic line and in another, a gear door modification was done improperly. Owners practise their part to keep the 210's gear-upwards stats at the elevation of the leader board. One pilot took off with a almost-expressionless battery and was shocked to find the gear retracted only enough to knock information technology off the downlocks. His reward was a landing with partially extended gear which, in a 210, isn't especially pretty.

Retractable versions of the Skyhawk and Skylane suffer like problems. Our chart on page 12 reveals that the 172RG Cutlass actually has twice the gear-up charge per unit as the 210. However, its low population distorts the data somewhat.

Piper systems, which use an electrically driven hydraulic power pack, don't announced to have as many hydraulic issues as the Cessna systems do. They practise suffer from broken links and failed downlocks.

The Aftermath

Baked into the actuarials by which insurance companies make profits despite boneheaded pilots is the realization that people state gear-up. Don't worry, they're used to information technology and nary an insurer exists that doesn't know how to process a gear-upward claim. That said, if you lot have a gear-up, there'south a correct way to handle it and a less right style.

It will be a large claim. David Thibodeaux, who owns Flying T in North Texas, specializes in gear-up repairs and reports invoices betwixt $60,000 and $xc,000 for a typical unmarried. Twins can be well above that and costs are escalating because parts are ever more than difficult to observe.

Our in-house insurance skilful, Jon Doolittle, of Sutton James, says that underwriters are separate on whether they're seeing more gear-upwardly landings. Simply there's discernible worry that the recent passage of the BasicMed dominion will have the positive upshot of keeping older pilots flight longer but the negative consequence of more gear-up landings due to distraction and retentivity bug in older airmen. "It doesn't take someone well-nigh running into an airliner to crusade a gear-upwards," Doolittle observes. "Now information technology could exist a Mylar airship."

Doolittle says that what data exists suggests that pilots who suffer gear-upwardly landings tend to be high-timers and maybe with high fourth dimension in type, merely currency is an issue as owners fly less. Our sweep of NTSB data was inconclusive on this signal. Notwithstanding, insurers encompass gear-upwardly landings, just don't await the policy to make you entirely whole.

A bones principle in the insurance business concern is that policies are supposed to cover reasonable, documented losses but not leave the policy holder better off than he was when the claim was filed. The so-called betterment doctrine makes things glutinous when damage non caused by the gear-up has to be repaired.

For example, gear-up landings almost ever trash the prop, requiring an engine teardown and inspection. If the inspection reveals a required AD against a role like a cam, crankshaft or magneto that wasn't damaged past the gear-up, the insurer is probable to cramp at paying for information technology, fifty-fifty though it will pay for the basic inspection. If the cam is trashed by spalling or corrosion, same deal. You'll have to replace it, but it won't be covered on the claim.

The aforementioned is truthful of airframe parts that might be damaged or worn and in need of replacement, but weren't damaged by the gear-up. Pretzeled props are routinely covered in gear-up landing claims, but increasingly, they are existence prorated, according to Doolittle's findings. That means if the prop was halfway to TBO, the lower value may be subtracted from the insurance claim.

Doolittle says that owners should look to pay something later on a gear-upwards claim. But to minimize that something, owners should recall that it's not the insurer'south job to find a shop, negotiate repair prices and telescopic and oversee the piece of work. That's on the shipping possessor.

Frequently, the work is done where the gear-up happens, but it doesn't have to be. If the aircraft is non heavily damaged, it can exist flown elsewhere for the repair, under a ferry permit.

This gives the owner the option of taking the airplane to a familiar shop that'south closer to home or one that specializes in this type of repair. Flight T is one such shop and Thibodeaux told us he much prefers to deal with a known insurance company than an owner who wants to nickel and dime every aspect of the repair piece of work.

Lacking a specialty store, however, the insurer won't necessarily intercede in any of this unless the estimates are outside the visitor'due south reasonable expectations. They may enquire for detailed estimates before the piece of work is approved. And remember, everything is negotiable, both with the insurer and the shop doing the work. Doolittle says owners who remain involved in the repairs in particular and document why they recollect certain parts should be replaced when they otherwise might not exist will go a fairer milk shake than those who just drop the airplane off and ask for a call when it's done.

"That's the difference between a proficient visitor and a very good company," Doolittle adds. "The very skillful ones are more probable to footstep up and make it correct." Those very expert companies might accuse slightly higher premiums—or not—simply the payoff will come when they don't peck the owner to decease on insurance claim line items.

The aviation insurance industry is currently over-served and intensely competitive, a business surroundings that makes companies think twice about denying too many claims. Word gets effectually, peculiarly among independent agents. Just don't presume companies will footstep up without being nudged in the right management past a cooperative attitude, skillful possessor legwork and ready documentation.

About That Engine. . .

Depending on the brand and model, tending to the engine after a gear-up may be the nearly expensive part of the job. If it'southward a twin, make it times two.

Brand no mistake, later on a gear-upwards landing in which the prop has been damaged, even a piddling, the engine will take to be torn down and inspected and insurers aren't going to skip this pace.

But they're too not going to buy you an overhaul. Following the edification doctrine, the insurer will pay for the prop and the labor to T&I the engine. Information technology will besides pay for impairment done to the engine equally a upshot of the sudden stoppage. That could be a croaky example or creepo, broken gears or other parts or nothing at all if the inspection yields no harm.

Shops nosotros checked with told the states that as much as half of their work is prop strike inspection and the labor to exercise that can total betwixt one-half and two thirds of overhaul cost, presenting the owner with a dilemma.

Since the engine is torn down, doesn't it make sense to get alee and overhaul information technology? It might, specially if the engine is past mid-time. Add together whatever parts are necessary—cylinders, cams, lifters so on—and the labor to put it all dorsum together is on the insurance company's dime. But they aren't the claw for new or even service-limits overhaul parts. They may also insist on some proration on parts that are serviceable with repairs.

How oft is damage found? "I would say rarely. Nosotros come across it more on Continentals than Lycomings," says Penn Yan Aero'south Bill Middlebrook. Still, crankshafts occasionally suspension at the flange.

Middlebook and other shops told u.s. they're constantly in discussions with insurers over what has to exist washed and what will be paid for in the claim. Rare is the engine that's opened up with no testify of problems in demand of attention.

Owners become both ways on whether to overhaul or merely settle for the T&I. Penn Yan sends two quotes, i for the parts the insurer volition pay for and a 2d that the owner has to encompass.

At Certified Engines in North Perry, Florida, they do the same. "But the keyword we hear is: betterment," says Certified'southward Allen Weiss. Insurers will sometimes dicker and become downward into the weeds over the list of parts. For the about function, says Weiss, insurers pay what they're supposed to and everybody's happy.

Click here to watch a video report of gear-up landings!

fergusontheessale.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.aviationconsumer.com/industry-news/editorial/the-60k-slide-post-gear-up-strategies/

Share this post