(http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/thedailynewsonline.com/content/tncms/assets/editorial/8/0e/b74/80eb744e-f1bc-11df-ae6a-001cc4c002e0-revisions/4ce2e3719ba97.image.jpg)
http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=82696
QuoteThe aircraft was performing touch-and-go landings when the pilots forgot to extend the landing gear. No injuries reported but aircraft substantially damaged in the belly landing.
What's that noise?
Do you mean that infernal beeping or the infernal scraping...
Quote: Those who have and those who will...
Quote from: Mission Pilot on November 17, 2010, 08:30:24 PM
What's that noise?
Do you mean that infernal beeping or the infernal scraping...
Quote: Those who have and those who will...
OK...on this next one, let's demonstrate what the gear warning horn sounds like...
More info.. http://thedailynewsonline.com/news/article_8a8cb468-f1bc-11df-b808-001cc4c002e0.html (http://thedailynewsonline.com/news/article_8a8cb468-f1bc-11df-b808-001cc4c002e0.html)
Note that this is not a 2004 as the RG's last manufacture year was 1986.
This is a great Audio Gear Warning advisory that I have on my RG: http://www.p2inc.com/audioadvisory.asp (http://www.p2inc.com/audioadvisory.asp)
There is a big difference between landing gear which won't extend vs. landing gear which a pilot won't extend....
And another $30k or so which will be used for repairs instead of training. :(
QuoteCessna hit the runway and skidded 546 feet down the runway
Impressive short-field performance on those RGs
(And I only joke because the story said there were no injuries...metal can be fixed)
Why CAP still has RG's is beyond me...
Quote from: Mission Pilot on November 17, 2010, 08:45:31 PM
Why CAP still has RG's is beyond me...
They make great photo platforms (only have to keep the strut out of the shot, not the wheels), and for any kind of transport mission, they're faster than the welded gear.
IMHO, the extra 20 kts is just not worth the 50K plus repair.
Not that this is the slightest bit funny, but heck anyone for a caption contest! :clap:
Quote from: Flying Pig on November 17, 2010, 10:48:20 PM
Not that this is the slightest bit funny, but heck anyone for a caption contest! :clap:
"are you sure there wasn't another way to reach those fuel caps?"
I can't do it Captain! I just can't do it!
"None of the other -172s had missing landing gear!"
Hahaha! Wow. One of our pilots recently took off and hit some turbulence, breaking the landing struts when he bounced off the runway.
"The Civil Air Patrol searchers located their objective at the end of a 546 foot long scrape mark on RWY 06.."
Quote from: Mission Pilot on November 17, 2010, 08:39:41 PM
This is a great Audio Gear Warning advisory that I have on my RG: http://www.p2inc.com/audioadvisory.asp (http://www.p2inc.com/audioadvisory.asp)
I suppose $1600 is cheaper than the sudden stoppage inspection, the new prop, associated sheetmetal work, and two new pairs of skivvies, but holy cow, thats one expensive piece of gear.
(the device thats packed into my reserve parachute that activates it at 750 ft when I'm still tooling along at freefall speeds is about $1250, and appears to be somewhat less complex/feature laden than this device, but still...)
It was pricey, but if you knew me :)
Quote from: Mission Pilot on November 18, 2010, 12:29:37 AM
It was pricey, but if you knew me :)
If you're anything like me, that $1600 has paid for itself several times over. :)
I used to love the AF towers saying "Blackcat 13, in sight, check gear down, cleared to land."
We'd always reply "Copy in sight, gear down and welded, cleared to land for Blackcat 13.."
They'd do it no matter what you were flying. :)
I wonder what happened to the two pilots after the investigation ended ...
Quote from: Flight Officer on November 18, 2010, 12:47:39 AM
I wonder what happened to the two pilots after the investigation ended ...
If I'm reading the linky right, the incident occurred yesterday. So, I doubt it is over. Definitely going to be rough, though... This extends far beyond just CAP.
EDIT: Yep, happened in the afternoon of Tuesday the 16th.
Quote from: Flying Pig on November 17, 2010, 10:48:20 PM
Not that this is the slightest bit funny, but heck anyone for a caption contest! :clap:
The "U" in GUMPS, that's underbelly, right?
Quote from: DakRadz on November 18, 2010, 12:55:07 AM
Quote from: Flight Officer on November 18, 2010, 12:47:39 AM
I wonder what happened to the two pilots after the investigation ended ...
If I'm reading the linky right, the incident occurred yesterday. So, I doubt it is over. Definitely going to be rough, though... This extends far beyond just CAP.
EDIT: Yep, happened in the afternoon of Tuesday the 16th.
I must have missed the date of the event. Thanks for correcting me. I'm glad no one was injured.
Gear, Undercarriage, Main Wheels, Put the Gear Down- Stupid!
.. the rest doesn't really matter if the little wheels are not out of their hiding spots. ;)
Another aircraft with incorrect insignia in a mishap (which, BTW, is the vehicular equivalent of a uniform thread).
Quote from: Eclipse on November 18, 2010, 01:50:38 AM
Another aircraft with incorrect insignia in a mishap (which, BTW, is the vehicular equivalent of a uniform thread).
Which insignia are incorrect on the aircraft ?
USAF/Aux was supposed to be removed a long time ago and the door badges are also two-revs old and officially sundowned as of earlier this year.
Thanks for educating me, Eclipse! I had a liking to the door badges, darn!
Quote from: Eclipse on November 18, 2010, 01:50:38 AM
Another aircraft with incorrect insignia in a mishap (which, BTW, is the vehicular equivalent of a uniform thread).
Another accident caused by the Identity Crisis.
Now for the likely quote from the PIC: "We are in so...much...trouble."
Now, I'm no pilot, so that's why I'm curious (I want to be a pilot)- would there be any way to recover from this at all?
I'm not going to try and ask questions like I know what I'm talking about (okay, plus my Google-fu is weak right now ;)), so I'll just see if anyone deigns to answer.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 18, 2010, 02:04:13 AM
USAF/Aux was supposed to be removed a long time ago and the door badges are also two-revs old and officially sundowned as of earlier this year.
According to CAPR 66-1 para 10b...it is in compliance as long as it does not need to be repainted. Once repainting is needed, it would then have to get up to date.
Now...if they repair and repaint the fuse, I would argue the time has come to update.
So, I've just been informed this aircraft was "totaled", meaning we lose an aircraft from the fleet. Oh, well. just another day at CAP renta plane... ::) :o
Let's hope the insurance policy for the mechanic who had the accident pays for the "totaled" aircraft. The accident aircraft looked like an older 172 so the recovered value woudn't pay for a replacement. If CAP receives anything, the check could pay for avionics upgrades to the rest of the fleet such as the Aspen DG/HSI retrofits.
What a waste. At least "totaled" doesn't necessarily mean it won't fly again. Just not for CAP. Gear up landed high wing Cessna's usually fare very well and come back to flight with an engine overhaul. But here's two bozos who just cost their unit an aircraft, and perhaps the ability to have another one for quite some time.
Sorry, but there's no excuse aside from mechanical got a gear up landing, and even then you have windows and ridiculously wide gear, you can see it extended by barely even trying.
Quote from: Flying Pig on November 17, 2010, 10:48:20 PM
Not that this is the slightest bit funny, but heck anyone for a caption contest! :clap:
Primer LOCKED
Master Switch ON
Magnetos on BOTH
Fuel Quantity OK
Engine Gauges GREEN
Carb Air HOT
Mixture RICH
Fuel Valve ON
Brake Pressure OK
Seatbelts, doors, & windows
Obtain Landing Clearance
"Oh crap... what did I forget this time? Where'd that stupid pamphlet g..."
"You are in so much trouble"
Quote from: sparks on November 18, 2010, 02:43:17 PM
Let's hope the insurance policy for the mechanic who had the accident pays for the "totaled" aircraft.
What mechanic? No mechanic had an accident here. A pilot and a flight instructor had the accident during dual instruction.
Quote from: sparks on November 18, 2010, 02:43:17 PM
The accident aircraft looked like an older 172 so the recovered value woudn't pay for a replacement.
What 172? The accident aircraft is a 1978 182RG. Based on a cursory search of for-sale ads for other 1978 182RGs, it was probably worth between $70,000 and $95,000. The necessary engine inspection and repair of the minor scraping damage typical of a gear-up such as this probably runs between $25,000 - $30,000.
Quote from: Flying Pig on November 17, 2010, 10:48:20 PM
Not that this is the slightest bit funny, but heck anyone for a caption contest! :clap:
"You, sir, are outta here!"
PIC: "Sorry, we were distracted by this buzzing sound inside the cockpit and forgot to put the gear down"
FAA: "That buzzing was the gear up warning horn!"
and last but not least...
"Hey, at least you remembered to put the flaps down"
Quote from: Flying Pig on November 17, 2010, 10:48:20 PM
Not that this is the slightest bit funny, but heck anyone for a caption contest! :clap:
"Now there's yer problem."
"I gotta go take a leak, how 'bout you talk to the FAA guy comin' over."
"Well, I guess it's time to repaint."
I do love the WMIRS comment about this aircraft though, simply "damage."
Quote from: DakRadz on November 18, 2010, 11:16:03 AM
Now, I'm no pilot, so that's why I'm curious (I want to be a pilot)- would there be any way to recover from this at all?
I'm not going to try and ask questions like I know what I'm talking about (okay, plus my Google-fu is weak right now ;)), so I'll just see if anyone deigns to answer.
As in an emergency procedure? No. Just keep on the rudder and stay on centerline or try and get over to the grass as soon as possible if there is any to minimize further damage, but you usually stop pretty quick.
Usually what happens first is that your prop hits the ground. Once that happens your done flying. The only thing that could save you is if you realized it BEFORE any portion of your aircraft touched. But then you would still be flying anyway. Then just tell ATC you were doing a high speed pass and hope they buy it.
Saw this on youtube a while back, this is similar to what they experienced for those who wonder.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYcMcf-o3Zs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYcMcf-o3Zs)
Quote from: mdickinson on November 18, 2010, 03:35:55 PM
What 172? The accident aircraft is a 1978 182RG. Based on a cursory search of for-sale ads for other 1978 182RGs, it was probably worth between $70,000 and $95,000. The necessary engine inspection and repair of the minor scraping damage typical of a gear-up such as this probably runs between $25,000 - $30,000.
The est. repairs can (and will) be much higher if there is major damage to the fuselage. If the aircraft was "folded", it is not worth the effort to repair.
If the ELT goes off, does that qualify as a "Find"?
If a CAP ELT goes off who looks for it?
Quote from: Flying Pig on November 18, 2010, 04:49:00 PM
Usually what happens first is that your prop hits the ground. Once that happens your done flying. The only thing that could save you is if you realized it BEFORE any portion of your aircraft touched. But then you would still be flying anyway. Then just tell ATC you were doing a high speed pass and hope they buy it.
Okay, I didn't know if that would happen first. Obviously that kills the flying fun.
So basically they completely did not realize they had forgotten the gear. Ouch.
Next question- anyone know what happens to members after such incidents? CAP-wise? FAA? What actions are taken?
Quote from: DakRadz on November 20, 2010, 12:06:05 AM
Next question- anyone know what happens to members after such incidents? CAP-wise? FAA? What actions are taken?
Well, cadet, the process (this is just a summary) begins with grounding the PIC (pilot in command). A CAPF 78 is filled out followed by an investigation and completion of a CAPF 79. The NTSB is notified as the flight ended in a manner not expected. The NTSB conducts an investigation as well. The respective wing commander decides what actions will be taken. The region commander may be involved. If the pilot is deemed negligent, a money assessment may be made. Appeals can be made to the national commander thru the national controller.
Let's just say this "oops" will be a headache for quite a few members.
Thank you Col. At this point it's knowledge for knowledge's sake, but at some point that'll be my motivation to not screw up...
Quote from: Flying Pig on November 17, 2010, 10:48:20 PM
Not that this is the slightest bit funny, but heck anyone for a caption contest! :clap:
"You said this was fixed gear, right? ... What do you mean you meant fixed wing?"
Caption:
"Guess I should have paid attention to that flashing landing gear light".
"Who's picking up the tab at the bar tonight Johnny?"
Quote from: JeffDG on November 17, 2010, 08:26:46 PM
(http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/thedailynewsonline.com/content/tncms/assets/editorial/8/0e/b74/80eb744e-f1bc-11df-ae6a-001cc4c002e0-revisions/4ce2e3719ba97.image.jpg)
"I don't think that's going to buff out, sir."
"you know, we should probably get those breaks check....sounded a bit grindy on the landing....."
Someone send that to EPICFAIL.COM! lol
The one guy was getting a Form 5.
The other guy was NY Wing's Chief Check Pilot.
Quote from: Mission Pilot on November 17, 2010, 08:45:31 PM
Why CAP still has RG's is beyond me...
Needed for commercial training and FAA check ride.
Needed for CFI training and FAA check ride.
Complex aircraft. To say CAP should not fly is a put down.
Quote from: FW on November 18, 2010, 12:39:02 PM
So, I've just been informed this aircraft was "totaled", meaning we lose an aircraft from the fleet. Oh, well. just another day at CAP renta plane... ::) :o
Colonel,
These are the same guys who took our N6420T, our Cessna 182 RG.
Can we get it back ASAP before it is lost from the fleet too?
Quote from: DG on November 20, 2010, 12:53:03 PM
Quote from: Mission Pilot on November 17, 2010, 08:45:31 PM
Why CAP still has RG's is beyond me...
Needed for commercial training and FAA check ride.
Needed for CFI training and FAA check ride.
Complex aircraft. To say CAP should not fly is a put down.
Our job is not flight training. So, from that perspective, there is no real need for that airplane in our fleet.
Quote from: A.Member on November 20, 2010, 03:17:10 PM
Quote from: DG on November 20, 2010, 12:53:03 PM
Quote from: Mission Pilot on November 17, 2010, 08:45:31 PM
Why CAP still has RG's is beyond me...
Needed for commercial training and FAA check ride.
Needed for CFI training and FAA check ride.
Complex aircraft. To say CAP should not fly is a put down.
Our job is not flight training. So, from that perspective, there is no real need for that airplane in our fleet.
Wrong.
Have you ever read CAPR 60-1?
I suggest you go back and read it carefully before you make more statements that may make you look foolish.
As a cadet who is interested in flying- I still don't think it is anywhere near CAP's primary jobs.
It is a service which our program offers that can be greatly beneficial compared to commercial flight schools. There are no pilot requirements in which they must provide flight instruction in CAP.
A service which can be used, nothing more or less.
Quote
Wrong.
Have you ever read CAPR 60-1?
I suggest you go back and read it carefully before you make more statements that may make you look foolish.
You can do all of that in a fixed gear Cessna and the have the member take his FAA check rides in Flying club complex aircraft.
Sell the RG's, suck up the complex training and FAA check rides in Flying Clubs, and take an extra hour to get where you're going.
Oh and DG, respectfully, lose the attitude.
Quote from: DG on November 20, 2010, 05:17:42 PM
Quote from: A.Member on November 20, 2010, 03:17:10 PM
Quote from: DG on November 20, 2010, 12:53:03 PM
Quote from: Mission Pilot on November 17, 2010, 08:45:31 PM
Why CAP still has RG's is beyond me...
Needed for commercial training and FAA check ride.
Needed for CFI training and FAA check ride.
Complex aircraft. To say CAP should not fly is a put down.
Our job is not flight training. So, from that perspective, there is no real need for that airplane in our fleet.
Wrong.
Have you ever read CAPR 60-1?
I suggest you go back and read it carefully before you make more statements that may make you look foolish.
Uh, yeah I have...
There is absolutely nothing in 60-1 to support the need for a RG. As the clear authority on 60-1, I challenge you to prove otherwise.
Flight training is permitted by regulations...but not required. That is a significant difference. The only mission related to flight training are Flight Academies, which are open only to cadets with the objective of providing up to 10 hours of instruction. However, participation in any flight training activity is at the sole discretion of the pilot. There is no requirement that any pilot, squadron, group, or wing provide those opportunities. But we do. And when we do, it does
not require a RG!
Furthermore, and perhaps more to the point, there is no requirement that CAP provide any specific type of aircraft or special equipment for the purpose of flight training. Most wings do not have a complex aircraft (don't think that has anything to do with my earlier point by chance, do you?!). I'm also not aware of any multi-engine or turbine aircraft. However, they're not prohibited by the regulations. So, what are the poor saps looking for those type ratings to do?! Perhaps by your reasoning we need those type of aircraft as well.
My statement is certainly no more foolish than yours. Perhaps you need to heed more of your own advice, DG.
Welcome to CAP-Talk, where a photo of a bent plane can turn from a caption contest into the Urinary Olympics in less than a page.
"It's supposed to be a touch and GO, Lieutenant...."
Quote from: JoeTomasone on November 21, 2010, 01:32:49 AM
"It's supposed to be a touch and GO, Lieutenant...."
Way to set me off coughing and hacking, sir.... ;D
Quote from: JoeTomasone on November 21, 2010, 01:32:49 AM
"It's supposed to be a touch and GO, Lieutenant...."
Nominated for best caption. :clap:
..like the telephone call I got one morning, "I think I'm on the Super Bad Boy List... now... " and that was it.
That was 12 hours *after* the member gear up landed a C177 that he had just gotten checked out in, and was doing night time landings for currency in it, before departing Southern California for the bay area to go to Thanksgiving dinner.
This was the third landing, and it was the shortest full stop of them all. The tower saw sparks, and the landing was long. At the 3,100 ft. mark of a 4,300 ft. runway.
Ummm.. yeah, and this was after I read about it in the morning paper and thought, "Oooh!! Airplane crashed at Palomar!" .. Oh! gear up! ... wow! Oooh! A Cardinal! ... OH! It's OurS! WTF!!"
D'oh! Then the phone rings.
Quote from: a2capt on November 21, 2010, 03:32:35 AM
the member gear up landed a C177 that he had just gotten checked out in, and was doing night time landings
it was the shortest full stop of them all. the landing was long. At the 3,100 ft. mark of a 4,300 ft. runway.
Questions:
1. Should he have been checked out in an RG?
2. If not, should the Check Pilot signing him off get assessed the damages.
3. Then, would the Check Pilot think twice before signing someone off to an airplane they obviously are not ready for?
in the defense of why there are still RG's around, i know Back-In-The-Day CAP had them for (no twilight jokes please) blood runs when CAP actually had those missions, why get rid of a (prevously) well working aircraft.
Quote from: A.Member on November 20, 2010, 11:37:43 PM
There is absolutely nothing in 60-1 to support the need for a RG. As the clear authority on 60-1, I challenge you...
Maybe not but, we are getting tasked to take on more and more complex missions requiring increasingly higher levels of aircrew competence. We pretty much need to train up if we want to stay relevant for our customers.
Quote from: PilotBillFromTexas on November 29, 2010, 02:03:49 AM
Quote from: A.Member on November 20, 2010, 11:37:43 PMThere is absolutely nothing in 60-1 to support the need for a RG. As the clear authority on 60-1, I challenge you...
Maybe not but, we are getting tasked to take on more and more complex missions requiring increasingly higher levels of aircrew competence. We pretty much need to train up if we want to stay relevant for our customers.
Why have training on an airframe we have so few of? Train with the tools you have.
We will have fewer and fewer RG's in inventory in time, thanks to age and "oops". Also, there are no single engine * RG's made anymore in the U.S. (Because of this, the FAA has been thinking of changing the "complex" training requirements for the commercial ticket.) So.... ,in time, having an RG in the fleet will become an academic discussion.
*Piper Matrix/Malibu doesn't count ;D
Quote from: FW on November 29, 2010, 02:39:52 AM
*Piper Matrix/Malibu doesn't count ;D
Piper still lists the Arrow as available to buy new.
http://www.piper.com/home/pages/Arrow.cfm
QuoteThe Piper Arrow is the only complex trainer available for purchase direct from an OEM. The Arrow offers an ideal classroom in the sky for complex, single engine training at a price that is manageable for the smallest of flight schools. Thousands are in service around the world, so your choice of the Piper Arrow for your training needs is a wise one.
^I stand corrected. However, the Arrow, being a low wing aircraft, is not suited for any other purpose other than complex training for CAP. Also, since it is not manufactured in Kansas, there is no support in the Senate (that is a whole other thread for discussion) for an appropriation to purchase them.
Quote from: FW on November 29, 2010, 03:00:27 AM
^I stand corrected. However, the Arrow, being a low wing aircraft, is not suited for any other purpose other than complex training for CAP. Also, since it is not manufactured in Kansas, there is no support in the Senate (that is a whole other thread for discussion) for an appropriation to purchase them.
Excellent point...however, they have their own support from their Senators in Florida.
You could use them for high-bird and transport missions...
Quote from: JeffDG on November 29, 2010, 03:11:04 AM
Quote from: FW on November 29, 2010, 03:00:27 AM
^I stand corrected. However, the Arrow, being a low wing aircraft, is not suited for any other purpose other than complex training for CAP. Also, since it is not manufactured in Kansas, there is no support in the Senate (that is a whole other thread for discussion) for an appropriation to purchase them.
Excellent point...however, they have their own support from their Senators in Florida.
You could use them for high-bird and transport missions...
Why would you buy an low wing airplane that could only used for some missions when you can buy a high wing airplane that can do all of our missions?
Afterall, it is YOUR tax dollars that is paying for them.