|
Post by Tom/CalClassic on Jun 18, 2011 15:05:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by stansdds on Jun 19, 2011 6:25:30 GMT -5
The pilot forgot to lower the gear? I wonder if the copilot thought this was an odd way to land an aircraft? Guess they didn't go through a standard procedure and checklist.
|
|
|
Post by Randy_Cain on Jun 19, 2011 9:46:09 GMT -5
With the current level of "journalism" in this country, I wonder how accurate that story is. Can anyone confirm that this is what happened? For one thing, isn't it the co-pilot that puts the gear down in the first place?
|
|
|
Post by sunny9850 on Jun 19, 2011 10:34:53 GMT -5
Journalistic sensationalism and ignorance aside, human error even in a two person crew is always a possibility. If it can happen it sooner or later will happen. The only way to protect against that is strict adherence to a fixed checklist. Even the "flow checks" are not enough to safeguard against missing a step 100% of the time.
Piper used to have a system to automatically deploy the gear if certain conditions were met...but for various reasons that system has been disabled in the fleet and is no longer installed in the new airplanes.
I read an account of a 747 captain detailing an almost gear up landing at SFO. The root cause of that sequence was a challenge between the crew to attempt an approach with pure energy management from the IAF to touchdown leaving the power setting where ever it was at the fix all the way to landing. As part of that "management" the gear deployment was intentionally delayed until it was almost too late.
In general I wait to read the NTSB report on an incident. It may take a bit to be published but it is the only way to get to the facts.
Cheers Stefan
|
|
|
Post by emfrat on Jun 19, 2011 15:30:02 GMT -5
In general I wait to read the NTSB report on an incident. It may take a bit to be published but it is the only way to get to the facts. Cheers Stefan I'm with you there, Stefan. I have a book (pub. 1969) where the author says the FAA considered any plane needing a long checklist was ipso facto unsafe, not just because an item could be missed, but because of the tendency to run through it 'automatically' when it was carried out several times a day. In the sim, I use the old BUMPFF downwind check for VFR, and in an ILS approach, I check the gear is down at 10 DME. ATB MikeW
|
|
|
Post by sunny9850 on Jun 19, 2011 21:49:46 GMT -5
BUMPFF .... That one I had to look up. ;D
Bumpff - the term applied to anything involving papaerwork. It is an acronym for Brakes, Undercarriage, Mixture, Pitch, Fuel, Flaps, which was the landing checklist for piston-engined propellor driven aircraft: the term was then applied, initially by RAF types. When it subsequently came into general use it often lost its last 'f'.
I was taught GUMPS ... Or Gas, Undercarriage, Mixture,Prop and Seatbelts.
After reading many articles and doing a few tests myself I have slightly modified the P portion to slowly bringing the pitch up. But not always to full fine. That I only do when the runway is really short or hot and high.
I spent a few flights working with the full manufacturer checklist and a notepad to break things down into short 5 or 6 steps per flight phase that work for our airplane and the way my partner and I fly. The funny thing is that when I go up solo now after flying together for 5 or 6 years I catch myself waiting for Fred's timely prompts and have to make doubly sure I follow the checklist 100%.
In a commercial operation of course things are very different. You don't fly with the same partner all the time and not in the exact same aircraft. For that very reason procedures have to be written to ensure that each phase is handled in as standardized a fashion as possible. Deviations lead to accidents.
Cheers Stefan
|
|
|
Post by stansdds on Jun 20, 2011 16:32:37 GMT -5
Yeah, Stefan, I agree, the NTSB report will be the most accurate source of information on this mishap.
|
|