Bad Decisions Pilots Make
Flying an airplane calls for two distinct types of skills: the "stick and rudder" feel for your airplane, and the "aviation management" skills required to make decisions when things aren't going the way you expect. Those of us who learned to fly as adults are often second rate in the first type of skills, but we can excel in the second kind. Here's an example of someone who made an extraordinarily bad decision, but lived to tell about it. I saw it on the Internet (http://www.wftv.com/irresistible/4982688/detail.html) and can't vouch for the exact truth of the tale, but there were fairly convincing photos and a video to go with it. Of course we all know how easy those are to fake for the computer-literate, but oh well...
The Cessna 182 is a rather tame, very capable general aviation airplane suitable for beginners (as long as they are rather large, with powerful arms; the controls are quite heavy in certain flight regimes, and the instrument panel is tall, obstructing the view ahead for a smaller pilot). Unlike many small airplanes, the 182 can safely fly with practically anything on board that will fit through the personnel doors or luggage door. But, it is relatively slow and not particularly fuel-efficient because of its fixed gear and strut braced wing. So...Cessna introduced a "182RG", RG for "Retractable Gear", whose wheels retracted in a bizarre, very complex motion into the area behind the rear seats. This unusual retraction path was necessary because the airplane is high wing, and the usual practice of swinging the main gear sideways (in or out) to rest inside the wing would not work.
It turned out that the retraction mechanism was failure-prone (engineering lesson: depart from classical solutions only when you're SURE there is no better way), and it usually fails with the main wheels trailing back, neither up nor down, when the hydraulics stop working. Well, our hero, flying one of these airplanes, arrives at his destination, enters downwind for landing, and hits the gear switch. The main wheels stick halfway down. After departing the pattern and circling, trying his bag of tricks to get the wheels down, nothing works. His buddy on the ground has a Jeep (the open model, perhaps the Wrangler?) It can easily go 80 mph. The 182's landing approach speed, flaps down, is about 70 knots (75 mph).
Get the picture? Our hero turns final, descends to 5 feet above the pavement, while his buddy, with another guy in the Jeep, accelerates to match the aircraft speed. (This requires quite a long runway). The second guy in the Jeep grabs the dangling wheel on one side of the aircraft and pulls it forward....CLICK!! the downlink engages and the wheels are down. The aircraft peels off and climbs away, with the gear still down but this time down and locked with 3 green lights showing on the instrument panel. Our hero flies around the pattern and makes a normal landing, taxis to the maintenance hangar, and informs the airframe mechanic that he needs to repair the landing gear power pack.
What is wrong with this picture???
It shows a staggering lack of judgement on the part of the pilot. He was obviously a brilliant pilot in some ways: he held his "bird" in a precise position near the ground, maintaining an exact speed, while the boys in the Jeep did their thing. I'm sure the pull of the wheel caused yaw and pitch excursions he had to counter exactly with control motions. But, in trying to avoid a gear-up landing, he forgot to keep his priorities straight.
A landing accident is often expensive but rarely causes fatalities, or even injuries worse than cuts and bruises. A gear-up landing is usually about a $10,000 accident. The problem had been caused by mechancical failure. The gear-up landing would probably have had to be reported to the FAA and NTSB, but neither would have taken action against the pilot, since he was obviously innocent.
A collision between the 182RG and a Jeep going 80 mph might have been fatal for everyone in both vehicles! Because no damage was done, it is not reportable to either FAA or NTSB, but if it was, I am quite sure the former would suspend the pilot's license to punish his poor judgment.
The Cessna 182 is a rather tame, very capable general aviation airplane suitable for beginners (as long as they are rather large, with powerful arms; the controls are quite heavy in certain flight regimes, and the instrument panel is tall, obstructing the view ahead for a smaller pilot). Unlike many small airplanes, the 182 can safely fly with practically anything on board that will fit through the personnel doors or luggage door. But, it is relatively slow and not particularly fuel-efficient because of its fixed gear and strut braced wing. So...Cessna introduced a "182RG", RG for "Retractable Gear", whose wheels retracted in a bizarre, very complex motion into the area behind the rear seats. This unusual retraction path was necessary because the airplane is high wing, and the usual practice of swinging the main gear sideways (in or out) to rest inside the wing would not work.
It turned out that the retraction mechanism was failure-prone (engineering lesson: depart from classical solutions only when you're SURE there is no better way), and it usually fails with the main wheels trailing back, neither up nor down, when the hydraulics stop working. Well, our hero, flying one of these airplanes, arrives at his destination, enters downwind for landing, and hits the gear switch. The main wheels stick halfway down. After departing the pattern and circling, trying his bag of tricks to get the wheels down, nothing works. His buddy on the ground has a Jeep (the open model, perhaps the Wrangler?) It can easily go 80 mph. The 182's landing approach speed, flaps down, is about 70 knots (75 mph).
Get the picture? Our hero turns final, descends to 5 feet above the pavement, while his buddy, with another guy in the Jeep, accelerates to match the aircraft speed. (This requires quite a long runway). The second guy in the Jeep grabs the dangling wheel on one side of the aircraft and pulls it forward....CLICK!! the downlink engages and the wheels are down. The aircraft peels off and climbs away, with the gear still down but this time down and locked with 3 green lights showing on the instrument panel. Our hero flies around the pattern and makes a normal landing, taxis to the maintenance hangar, and informs the airframe mechanic that he needs to repair the landing gear power pack.
What is wrong with this picture???
It shows a staggering lack of judgement on the part of the pilot. He was obviously a brilliant pilot in some ways: he held his "bird" in a precise position near the ground, maintaining an exact speed, while the boys in the Jeep did their thing. I'm sure the pull of the wheel caused yaw and pitch excursions he had to counter exactly with control motions. But, in trying to avoid a gear-up landing, he forgot to keep his priorities straight.
A landing accident is often expensive but rarely causes fatalities, or even injuries worse than cuts and bruises. A gear-up landing is usually about a $10,000 accident. The problem had been caused by mechancical failure. The gear-up landing would probably have had to be reported to the FAA and NTSB, but neither would have taken action against the pilot, since he was obviously innocent.
A collision between the 182RG and a Jeep going 80 mph might have been fatal for everyone in both vehicles! Because no damage was done, it is not reportable to either FAA or NTSB, but if it was, I am quite sure the former would suspend the pilot's license to punish his poor judgment.
posted by SToby at 11:13
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home