Oops

[HGjunkie]

"It's supposed to be a touch and GO, Lieutenant...."

Nominated for best caption.  :clap:

[a2capt]

..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.

[DG]

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?

[SABRE17]

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.

[PilotBillFromTexas]

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.

[davidsinn]

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.

Why have training on an airframe we have so few of? Train with the tools you have.

[FW]

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 

[JeffDG]

*Piper Matrix/Malibu doesn't count 

Piper still lists the Arrow as available to buy new.
http://www.piper.com/home/pages/Arrow.cfm

The 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.

[FW]

^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.

[JeffDG]

^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...

[PHall]

^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.